It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:27 AM

Originally posted by stillwind
Once again, the game boys of ATS show just how truly ignorant that they are. Here's news for you little boys. Every M-16 has a bayonet lug. It's on there for a reason. The US uses more bayonets now that we every have. Oh, and since you morons don't really know anything about our military, I'll let you in on something else. We use horses in Afghanistan, even today.
Now go back to your little video games and the real warriors will continue to protect your worthless asses.

I'm sorry I didn't know that going across the planet BLOWING UP PEOPLES FAMILIES AND DEVASTATING THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE WAS SAVING MY F****NG LIFE!!!! You are truly pathetic. YOU are pathetic. There is not one single legitimate reason why US soldiers are in the middle east. Any hatred towards America from the middle east came about because we went there in the first place and started blowing things up and toppling governments.

Who are we fighting? The Taliban that was initially backed by the US government to fight off the soviets in proxy wars during the (still ongoing) cold war?

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you to wrap your head around: Imagine China said that a group of US terrorists blew up some buildings in China. By parallel logic, anyone supporting the US invasion of Afghanistan should welcome Chinese soldiers marching in our streets to look for the terrorists. By parallel logic, supporters should sit back quietly as Chinese attack drones blow up our cities. And when a big fat missile blows up your family you better not pick up a rifle and become an insurgent against them, because you support the exact same thing they're doing if you support the US invasion of Afghanistan.

How typical of zealous warmongers to believe that blowing people up makes the world a peaceful freaking place. Violent people are ignorant.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:40 AM
reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

He's trolling his statement is clearly nonfactual and moronic. Let's be honest more bayonets used today then ever before? Really? I mean come on clearly that's an irrational statement, today's warfare isn't close combat and to even think so is laughable. I mean seriously, a small portion of the military still uses them but that's those who deal with home raids, which clearly isn't a large percentage. Anyone thinking bayonets aren't a dead item in terms of use needs a reality check. Because clearly storming an enemy with bayonets attached doesn't equal good results for your infantry. Proven fact, never mind that again our battle tactics don't include the bayonet now a day, unless you mean sifting through debris and stabbing people to make sure their dead, which again is against the geneva convention.
edit on 24-10-2012 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:51 AM

Originally posted by timetothink
"The ships are gone"

Those in the know say we need at least 300 water vessels for our Navy to be safe and effective.

There are 12 carriers, by law. Today they are all nuclear powered. The last two conventional carriers, Kennedy and Kitty Hawk, were decommissioned several years ago; my son-in-law decommissioned both ships.

After all arrangements were made to decommission Kitty, he was instructed to call the ceremony something else because its replacement had not passed sea trials and therefore the Navy would violate the law by having only 11 operating carriers.

So they had a legend ceremony.

Shortly after, only the CO and one or two sailors remained. Four months later the last crew member, the CO, received a message to transfer from the ship. So for four months the Navy had a commissioned carrier, dead and no crew.

Now to the meat. If you were to ask our citizens "How big is our U.S. Navy?" you would receive all kinds of answers. Most would be large numbers, like 1,000 ships. Actually, it is 278, plus or minus -- the smallest number in some 80 years. There are 340 admirals, plus or minus a few.

The Sixth Fleet has one ship, and I don't think it has any guns or missiles. I'm not sure where that destroyer came from. The No. 1 one priority for our Navy, as demanded by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mullen, and the chief of naval operations, Adm. Roughead, is diversity. They are busy doing other things.

Our people have been put to sleep since the 1993 base closures, when the Navy lied to us about the size of the fleet. It was then 450, and nobody said anything when it dropped below 300. Where are the Kings, Halseys, Nimitzes and Burkes? We now have no warriors, only managers. James A. Kenney Capt., U.S. Navy (Retired)

Current Nimitz class Carriers - 11

Ship Name Hull No. Class Type Homeport[1] Comment
USS Enterprise CVN-65 Enterprise Aircraft carrier Norfolk, VA [67]
USS Nimitz CVN-68 Nimitz Aircraft carrier San Diego, CA [164]
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69 Nimitz Aircraft carrier Norfolk, VA [64]
USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 Nimitz Aircraft carrier San Diego, CA [30]
USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 Nimitz Aircraft carrier Norfolk, VA [234]
USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72 Nimitz Aircraft carrier Everett, WA [2]
USS George Washington CVN-73 Nimitz Aircraft carrier Yokosuka, Japan [80]
USS John C. Stennis CVN-74 Nimitz Aircraft carrier Bremerton, WA [116]
USS Harry S. Truman CVN-75 Nimitz Aircraft carrier Norfolk, VA [97]
USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 Nimitz Aircraft carrier San Diego, CA [199]
USS George H.W. Bush CVN-77 Nimitz Aircraft carrier Norfolk, VA [81]

Carriers Under Construction - 1

Ship Name Hull No. Class Type Keel Date Launch Date Comment
Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford Aircraft carrier 13 Nov 2009 [438]

Planned Carriers - 2

Ship Name Hull No. Class Type Comment
John F. Kennedy CVN-79 Gerald R. Ford Aircraft carrier Development
Unnamed CVN-80 Gerald R. Ford Aircraft carrier

Navy Ships

edit on 24-10-2012 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-10-2012 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:04 AM
This ridiculous topic is still going...pfft...figures...nothing like putting idiocy above substance.

The Pres's comments were funny....he made a point...but the truth is, he should maybe said "sabers" instead of bayonets.

But that brings me to another point. Some folks have bent themselves into a knot to tell everyone we still issue bayonets...really? So that justifies it? How about....another good example of wasted tax payer money. Issue folks a nice survival style belt knife (which they have and can do) and let the stupid bayonets die out like black powder did. Just because the military like buying crap we don't need with OUR money doesn't justify it's existence.

Everyone is still missing the big picture. Our Gov is wasteful with our money...the military is wasteful with OUR money...the military industrial complex price gouges us and rips off OUR money.

What part of this aren't you folks getting?...Oh I know...the freaking common sense parts.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:07 AM
reply to post by mademyself1984

Originally posted by mademyself1984
I can assure you, that in my three years spent serving this country in Iraq, bayonets are still issued, bayonets are still used and bayonets are still a necessary weapon in today's infantry and marine corps. That is a fact. You would have absolutely no knowledge of whether or not bayonets are a viable means of combat in today's military. I know this to be true, because you claimed they aren't.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I never claimed bayonets are not a viable means of combat in today's military. I never claimed they are not still used, nor did I claim they are not still issued. I never claimed anything you just implied I claimed. Neither did President Obama.

However, I did claim that bayonets are used less than in the past, and are less necessary, which is true.

It's not 1865 anymore. Soldiers from both sides of the war don't line up on the battlefield face to face, and rush at each other like in the Civil War where bayonets were a necessity.

This whole thing is foolish. I keep seeing new stories pop up on Google claiming, "Obama was wrong, we still use bayonets!"... I just want to know, are people really this unintelligent? Obama never claimed we don't use bayonets anymore, he said we use less, and that is a statistical fact. Yet people keep implying Obama claimed we don't use bayonets anymore....

Take a look at this for example:
Obama RIPPED by bayonet company.

We spoke with Dan Riker from Bayonet Inc. -- a leading military surplus outlet that specializes in bayonets -- who tells us he believes Obama's comment was "ignorant ... because our soldiers still use bayonets."

What is going on here? Either blatant propaganda, or pure idiocy. Obama didn't claim we don't use bayonets anymore, he said we use less bayonets. Do any of you people see how insane this is?

edit on 24-10-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:11 AM
IMHO it seems like the debates have become nothing but 'chop' sessions. (a word from the 60's) Are there no comments or time for anything positive? Embarking on tearing down each other by nit picking completely unimportant topics just to get a jab...... well thats what 6th graders do. I think Obama's more professional in his demeanor, and Romney a bit less, and I really don't like Obamas track record, especially on the health care fiasco, but I'm just as wary of Romney selling us down the road as in some of the instances where Obama appears to have. "We got crap for a choice" plain and simple. NO SUBSTANCE in either candidate that raises them to the position becoming a President of the United States. Always a 'lesser of two evils' in the last couple decades.

Do any of you honestly think otherwise? And are any of you truly satisfied with the choices we have..? The world is in turmoil, the least error could spell disaster, the Middle East (Iran/Israel) is simmering, China and Russia waiting in the wings to put forth their agendas, and this is the best we can do. Do we think our corrupt leaders in government are sustainable, or our policies plausible? It's all a joke, but no one's laughing except Obama and Romney... The world is changing faster than possibly any other time in history, can we afford to just kick back and be entertained on the weekends and live meaningless lives glued to the tube, being programed for the next century by powers we can't even see?

SO the point is.......... do comments like "Bayonet, horses and ships" have any value in what we face in the coming decades, ARE THEY even important? America's not as stupid as the media would make them out to be, and 'GOOD' is still happening here and there despite the shape our countries in. I'm an optimist no matter, but dang...... it's becoming harder and harder to maintain that platform with such division here in our country.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:17 AM
reply to post by illuminated0ne

I comprehended what he was saying fine.
Try addressing the information I posted from Naval sources saying they need more ships.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by NoJoker13
I just love that this is the republican focal point after the debate. I mean Really? This is it?

Why not? It's more important than what the LEFT is making a focal point -
Romneys Son Apologizes for saying he wanted to take a swing at Obama

Originally posted by NoJoker13
your idea of 'information' goes hand and hand with Mitt's idea about transparent policy.

Wanna talk about 'transparency' and Obama? No? Didn't think so.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:18 AM

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by butcherguy

I guess you missed that bit about a 'bayonet' being something being attached to the business end of a rifle and used much like a spear. These days, with automatic weapons, it's far easier to just shoot a few rounds rather than sticking your assault rifle into an enemy combatant and then having to do the 'struggling to pull it out again' dance.

That's why bayonet drills were dropped from training.

You can call a knife a bayonet if you like, though.
You are pretty snarky for a moderator.

Maybe you can take a break from that and read up on bayonets. I posted a link.

They still mount on the end of a rifle,
They are multiple-function tools.....

And they still call them, get this......


Why do you think they manufacture them with the ability to mount them onto a rifle? It is to use them as a spear.

They aren't just knives.

I'm a veteran of the Army and NO we do not use closed.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

So who was your faviourate president ever?
edit on 24-10-2012 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:20 AM
reply to post by SilentKillah

Don't forget that the US also has 8 active Wasp-class ships which carry helicopters and VTOL aircraft.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:21 AM

One modern ship could be equivalent in power to two or more older ships from 1916.
reply to post by illuminated0ne

In the same way that the entire Royal Navy of 1814 wouldn't have a prayer in defeating Iron-clad HMS Dreadnought of 1914, a large flotilla of of WW1-era warships wouldn't stand a chance against a modern frigate or destroyer.

With laser-guided machine-cannons, radar-guided missiles, rockets and torpedoes, not to mention highly-sophisticated countermeasures systems, it'd be over in minutes.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:21 AM

Originally posted by NoJoker13
Don't even humor the conversation, just ask them to outline Romney's policy for you. If this is all they have let um run with it, this isn't going to change any tide. Just makes the republican party look even more childish.

You fail to grasp the fact that someone can expose Obama for making stupid comments and still not be pro Romney. And someone can expose Romney for making stupid comments and still not be pro Obama. Your assumption that someone is automatically 'for the other guy' because he/she is against someone is a mistake on your part.

Romney has no specifics and no policy plan. (except for Israel which he has said he wants 'no daylight' between us and them **SHUDDER**). Obama has given no specifics for how he wants to proceed for the next four years except to say .. more of the same and we will continue on this path (which isn't working out very well).

The fact that Romney and Obama are same/same (except for Israel) when it comes to how they think they'll supposedly fix this country is irrelevant to the conversation about the US Navy.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by masqua

So because YOU think they are useless, that means that the military doesn't use them?

They use them, it's a fact whether you agree or not. Check the marine website yourself.

None of it changes the fact that again Obama lied, we have more bayonets in the military now than 1916, and his analogy sucked.

Also the point of his statement was to compare the uselessness of bayonets and horses to the Navy. His whole mission is to cut the military.

Ummm, the military has been getting cutdown since the days of Bush I!!!

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
So who was your faviourate president ever?

Probably Abraham Lincoln. But I'm sure someone somewhere will dig up something on him that could easily burst that bubble.
Seems that with time all sorts of dirt comes out that was never known while the POTUS was in office.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

Nobody even claimed that we don't need more ships. The only claim that was made is that we don't need as many as we used to have in the past.

So your point is irrelevant.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:27 AM
The US Army has ceased bayonet infantry training all though the weapon has been made us of to good effect as recently as Afghanistan.

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

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.

I love all the armchair military out there...........

I mean is this the real issue? The real issue should be how we are implementing our military in the first place.....

That being said......

there is still PLENTY of close quarters fighting, I suppose everyone who loves Obamas response on this has completely forgot about all the urban fighting and house clearing we (yes i said we cause i was one of the many who had to do it) had to, and still have to do?

Having a large knife at arms length you can use while being able to stay out of striking range is def preferable....

Not to mention the stop and go gun battles that happen quite often, ammo starts to run scare.....guess what happens then?

How bout we keep the speculation and b.s. to a minimum and actually listen to people who were in the service, instead of pretending to be experts eh?

edit on 23-10-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

So servicemember to servicemember...when was the last time you fixed your bayonet?

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by earthdude
Nobody in the military has needed a bayonet or a horse for many decades. Battleships are also useless technology and do nothing against poppy farmers and other people bent on revenge for heinous acts committed by the US. Romney only wants battleships because the battleship makers are funding him. Obama should have said that.

Really? tell that to the military in the mountains and hills of afghanistan and pakistan that have used horses to patrol........

And tell that to every Marine or other serviceman out there like myself who is still issued and carries a bayonet ......

Once again.........I LOVE when people know absolutely nothing about the military come in and start making claims......

And once again, horeses and bayonets are beside the point...

Obama can try to make all the jabs and sly remarks he wants about the military, hes proven time and time again tha thes inept with our foriegn policy and has no quams putting them in harms way continuously.....

hes damn sure no better then bush was in that aspect.....

The only thing about our military Obama cares about , is using it to make a political statement or boost his approval numbers........

edit on 23-10-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

The point was sound point blank!

I carried my OWN blade, not that dull, Army issued bayonet as many of my other fellow Ranger's.

Obama may not care about the military, but what President has?

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:35 AM
Call him names all you want......In two weeks you'll be calling him Mr. Vice President Elect.

Good bye and good riddence to Obama.

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in