Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ryan: "I just don't understand" bayonet remark

page: 1
38
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+33 more 
posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Ryan: "I just don't understand" bayonet remark


Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan defended his running mate's positions following Monday's third and final presidential debate and took aim at the president for comparing Mitt Romney's military budget strategy to the game "Battleship." "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," Mr. Obama said in response to Romney's critique of the administration's military spending. "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. "The question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships," he added. Appearing on "CBS This Morning," Ryan suggested the president was being petty: "To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets - I just don't understand that comparison. "Look. We have to have a strong Navy to keep peace and prosperity and sea lanes open," he continued. "The president's, all these defense cuts, if all these defense cuts go through, our Navy will be smaller than it was before World War I. That's not acceptable. And, yes, the ... the ocean hasn't shrunk. You still have to have enough ships to have a footprint that you need to keep sea lanes open, to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."


Of course he doesn't understand the remark because he knows nothing of the military. If it isn't game of counting ships the why is he and Romney complaining about fewer ships? "To keep our strength abroad" this says he supports our Navy protecting other nations instead of protecting our coastal waters which is their main job. Ryan is clueless and this interview shows it.




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I wonder if we actually do have fewer bayonets today than when we used horses in combat.

I haven't seen any stats provided yet.

I was just reading up on bayonets, and they are still issued today, and most of today's assault rifles used by armed forces have bayonet lugs for mounting those bayonets.

Maybe the president should have picked a better example to use than bayonets? Something like a musket, that they don't really use any more.
edit on 23-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


+47 more 
posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Obama's remarks were undignified in the extreme and unbefitting a president.
"We have things called aircraft carriers that planes land on." It was immature, really bush-league.
Our society has become so ignorant that rude, snotty, and mannerless people are looked upon as "assertive" or "confident".

Seriously...it was like watching some smarmy, know-it-all college brat.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Yes, the US Navy is about protecting our shores, but it is also a power projection platform. Just having a small fleet offshore has deterred countries in the past from doing something stupid.

Though I'm not to sure that'll work these days. Most countries these days seem to be doubling down on stupid.

It is a numbers game, the fewer ships that harder it will be to protect our shores (though I don't think the US is in any danger of a amphibious invasion) and it will also be harder to get aid to countries devastated by a Tsunami or other natural disaster, something the Navy is very good at.

But on the other note, many of the ships that are coming off the yards these days are considered to be flops that don’t work the way they were advertised upon receiving the contract.

I think that Obamas remark was understood, but the way it was delivered was not liked. It sounded condescending to me.


+39 more 
posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
You'd have to be quite dumb to not understand.

Bayonets are not as necessary as they used to be because the battlefield has changed, war has changed, technology has changed, tactics have changed, etc. so therefor we use less bayonets.

In the past, having a large number of Navy ships was necessary. Now we have bigger, faster, more powerful ships, and I'm sure we don't need as many as we used to have because of that. One modern ship could be equivalent in power to two or more older ships from 1916.

So Romney's argument that "we have fewer ships than we did in 1916 because of Obama" is just an extremely illogical and empty argument. It's laughable.

And the fact Paul Ryan doesn't understand the comparison made by the President just shows how incredibly unintelligent he is.
edit on 23-10-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)


+22 more 
posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColeYounger
Obama's remarks were undignified in the extreme and unbefitting a president.
"We have things called aircraft carriers that planes land on." It was immature, really bush-league.
Our society has become so ignorant that rude, snotty, and mannerless people are looked upon as "assertive" or "confident".

Seriously...it was like watching some smarmy, know-it-all college brat.


Did Romney expect to be taken seriously when comparing today's Navy with the one in the early 1900's? One of our battleships today could decimate most of the fleet we had in the 1900's.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Obama's problem may be that he is out of touch with the military.... if it isn't a 'drone' that is being talked about.

He is familiar with those. They filmed the Benghazi terrorist attack with one, and he uses them to execute the people on his 'kill list'.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 





But on the other note, many of the ships that are coming off the yards these days are considered to be flops that don’t work the way they were advertised upon receiving the contract.


Then shouldn't we be suing the builders?


+11 more 
posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


I was going to post about this because I was incensed, but not surprised, by the ignorant spin the right tries to put to these types of comments. Here's what Eric Cantor said:



Mr. President, for the thousands of Virginians in the Navy family, cutting our naval forces isn't a game of battleship.


It's obvious to anyone half-intelligent that the president was referring to the changing requirements - technology has changed, situations have changed, so the requirements for what constitutes a strong navy have changed - it's not just about numbers. Romney obviously looked at the numbers and said "umm, less is bad", without understanding what those numbers actually mean. But, like I said, I shouldn't be surprised. All of what Obama said on this subject last night was a valid retort to the uninformed comments that Romney made.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
uk.answers.yahoo.com...

We ( or the Brits I should say) still use bayonnets...........................

I know there has been talk of getting rid of the training, but not a
good idea.
edit on 23-10-2012 by SrWingCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Obama's problem may be that he is out of touch with the military.... if it isn't a 'drone' that is being talked about.

He is familiar with those. They filmed the Benghazi terrorist attack with one, and he uses them to execute the people on his 'kill list'.


Out of touch with the military? Funny how you bring up drones you do know that is just a continuation of the program started under Bush.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


I say unequivocally that M Romney and P Ryan have a superb comprehension of the status of our military readiness throughout the world as proven in their respective performances in the debates.

NOW - I stated to you in another thread -

Quote Vitruvian - "BTW - we veterans know that BAYONETS ARE STILL IN USE AS AN OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE WEAPON - ask any Marine...MARINES ARE A BRANCH OF THE US NAVY........... "


You responded

Quote buster2010 "Ask the Marines how many times they have actually used them in combat. And the Marines are now considered their own branch of the service."


I now say to you - in essence - you are not stating the facts completely and/or correctly - see Wiki article here


The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the United States Armed Forces responsible for providing power projection from the sea, using the mobility of the United States Navy to deliver combined-arms task forces rapidly. It is one of seven uniformed services of the United States. In the civilian leadership structure of the United States military, the Marine Corps is a component of the United States Department of the Navy,[7][8] often working closely with U.S. naval forces for training, transportation, and logistic purposes; however, in the military leadership structure the Marine Corps is a separate branch.



edit on 23-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt


+8 more 
posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


President Obama never claimed anyone stopped using bayonets. He said we use less bayonets, which is true.

Bayonets are generally for close quarters fighting. War has changed, and tactics have changed, weapons have changed, and fighting from a distance has become the norm. So there is less and less close quarters fighting, and less need for a bayonet.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Just ask anyone with a CIB(Combat Infantry Badge) about whether or not the US still uses bayonets in training.We haven't had a charge lately but a British unit scared off an attacking force by doing so.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Of course he doesn't understand the remark because he knows nothing of the military.


What exactly did Obama know of the military in 2008? The remark spoke to the lowest common denominator. In terms of a "debate" he lost on that remark. I know I laughed out loud.

I just wish Gary Johnson would have been included. These debates were rigged/boring and did not debate anything of consequence. Romney was never challenged like he was against Ron Paul because Ron Paul kept bringing up things that mattered and that he didn't have scripted responses for.

The only thing we learned from last night is that Obama is Bush on foreign policy and Romney is Obama on foreign policy.

The truth didn't come out though about Obama on foreign policy and it couldn't without making Romney look like a member of ATS.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


President Obama never claimed anyone stopped using bayonets. He said we use less bayonets, which is true.

Bayonets are generally for close quarters fighting. War has changed, and tactics have changed, weapons have changed, and fighting from a distance has become the norm. So there is less and less close quarters fighting, and less need for a bayonet.


Not less need for naval vessels as compared to 1916. We had NOTHING in 1916. We had to undergo an incredible build up for World War II. The less ships we have the more vulnerable we are to a blitz-style strike. Obama / and probably Romney will continue to dismantle, fatigue, and outsource our military



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by TDawgRex
 





But on the other note, many of the ships that are coming off the yards these days are considered to be flops that don’t work the way they were advertised upon receiving the contract.


Then shouldn't we be suing the builders?


Yep, we should be. Why we are not baffles me. Probably because of all those political contributions and Senators protecting the shipyards in the name of protecting the jobs there.

If memory serves me right, we did once sue GE who had to build us a couple of Submarines free of charge as their punishment.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
reply to post by buster2010
 


I say unequivocally that M Romney and P Ryan have a superb comprehension of the status of our military readiness throughout the world as proven in their respective performances in the debates.

NOW - I stated to you in another thread -

Quote Vitruvian - "BTW - we veterans know that BAYONETS ARE STILL IN USE AS AN OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE WEAPON - ask any Marine...MARINES ARE A BRANCH OF THE US NAVY........... "


You responded

Quote buster2010 "Ask the Marines how many times they have actually used them in combat. And the Marines are now considered their own branch of the service."


I now say to you - in essence - you are not stating the facts completely and/or correctly - see Wiki article here


The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the United States Armed Forces responsible for providing power projection from the sea, using the mobility of the United States Navy to deliver combined-arms task forces rapidly. It is one of seven uniformed services of the United States. In the civilian leadership structure of the United States military, the Marine Corps is a component of the United States Department of the Navy,[7][8] often working closely with U.S. naval forces for training, transportation, and logistic purposes; however, in the military leadership structure the Marine Corps is a separate branch.



edit on 23-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt





"however, in the military leadership structure the Marine Corps is a separate branch"

Awesome. You just proved his point. LOL



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


Yes, we use less bayonetes these days. Even in the early 1900's we new better that to bring a knife (bayonete) to a gun fight!




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Score one for Obama. (he needed one)

Comparing today's fleet levels to those of 1916 without recognizing the changes in hardware was dumb and OBama was prepared to pounce on that one.

Not a game-changer. But, credit where credit is due.






top topics



 
38
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join