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

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Who know's if the Chinese use bayonets...we don't.

And that photo of U.S. troops doesn't look like a deployed unit too me. They appear to still be in training.

WE DON'T USE BAYONET'S!!!

As someone else said, when was the last time the order "Fix Bayonet's" was given?

I never heard it...

Looking at the photo again...actually the Chinese bayonets do appear to be decoration. They appear to be at some ceremony. Those are not their battle weapons...

edit on 24-10-2012 by DZAG Wright because: To add on

LINK TO PHOTO - VA: Virginians joust with Obama over bayonets, horses, ships

1996 DEPLOYMENT OFFICIAL PHOTO

BTW - I am a disabled veteran and we used bayonets!!! We trained with them and we carried them at all times - either fixed on in the scabbard!!!

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

My man...those are soldiers/marines aboard a ship training...probably as a punishment for something...so their CO made them do bayonet training as a light punishment.

Show me a photo of a soldier/marine with boots on the ground while downtown and they have a freaking bayonet on their rifle!

Disabled vet or not, this isn't 1972...WE DO NOT USE BAYONET'S!! You must have served during WWI?

Everything you said is now invalid. Have a nice day.

By the way... what is wrong with you calling someone "Retarded"? Aside from being a blatant TOS violation, it clearly demonstrates your character as a person. Pathetic.

edit on 24-10-2012 by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies because: Setting something straight

I actually take a little bit of humble pie...

Though, what are those guys doing with M-16's and they're downtown? I would need to know the context of that photo. Is it even real or a movie trailer?

I know what I know from experience and just went and asked some Army and Marines (since I work in a Vet Center) and make sure I'm not crazy.

We don't use bayonet's anymore...

This is an actual photo taken by an AP embedded journalist with active deployed troops in Fallujah in 2006.

Not 2012, but it was also the first photo I found in one of my folders.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

And if your hair splitting..then your losing. the right needs to address the point, not the example..the average muddlebrained person doesn't want to get lost in pop trivia when the point is valid..

here are some hairs for you to split.

Look down the page. You will see pics of modern US servicemen in a combat theater with bayonets fixed.

How many bayonet charges do you think were mounted during the year 1916?
1916 bayonets were not the multiuse tool that bayonets are today.
How many bayonets actually served in their designed capacity in the year 1916?

You may call it splitting hairs, but they are facts. Damnable facts for some.

And still missing the point.

At this point in the discussion, I simply accept you are either incapable of getting the jist, or understand it yet refuse to acknowledge based on some strange distortion of partisan fanboy reaction. A bit like breaking down a knock knock joke because most doors have peep holes...

Anyhow, do you personally believe we need to massively expand our navy? Why (specific reasons..are we about to go to war with china to control the pacific ocean for instance)

How much of your personal taxes would you allow for to be taken for this project? Would you accept a 10% tax hike? (I mean, if it is a priority that must be done...)

Originally posted by TC Mike
Its not specifically the President's remark of bayonets and horses remark, but the presumption on Obama to school Mitt on the US military as if he were a fifth grader. This insult to Mitt Romney's intelligence is really petty for Obama to do. This is not only an insult to Mitt's intelligence, but an insult to the intelligence of any American viewer watching the debate.

Obama: “You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Details and Implication

His presumption was correct. What can Mitt actually tell Obama about our foreign policy and military...OBAMA IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF!!!!

Obama has access to the best intelligence in the world. He knows things......Mitt doesn't even have the classification to know!

So yes, he can speak to Mitt as if he's a 5th grader!

Actually it is Mitt who is insulting the President's intelligence by thinking he can box with him.

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

 

You obviously didn't read the link I posted in my last post.

Drones are used for reconnaissance, and most of them are armed.

Aircraft used for recon reduces the need for recon ships. It's a fact.

Sorry to disappoint you.

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

I would only be disappointed if I was wrong.

Also, we don't use drones to fight Somali Pirates, this is what we do: theveteranssite.greatergood.com...

Horse Soldiers

Horse Soldiers is the dramatic account of a small band of Special Forces soldiers who secretly entered Afghanistan following 9/11 and rode to war on horses against the Taliban. Outnumbered forty to one, they pursued the enemy across mountainous terrain and, after a series of intense battles, captured the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, which was strategically essential if they were to defeat the Taliban.

The bone-weary American soldiers were welcomed as liberators, and overjoyed Afghans thronged the streets. Then the action took a wholly unexpected turn. During a surrender of six hundred Taliban troops, the Horse Soldiers were ambushed. Dangerously outnumbered, they fought for their lives in the city's immense fortress, Qala-i-Janghi, or the House of War. At risk were the military gains of the entire campaign: if the soldiers perished or were captured, the effort to defeat the Taliban might be doomed.

As the Americans struggled to hold the fortress, they faced some of the most intense urban warfare of our time. But until now the full story of the Horse Soldiers has never been told. Doug Stanton received unprecedented cooperation from the U.S. Army's Special Forces soldiers and Special Operations helicopter pilots, as well as access to voluminous after-battle reports. In addition, he interviewed more than one hundred participants and walked every inch of the climactic battleground.
www.amazon.com...
This exciting story is filled with unforgettable characters: brave Special Forces soldiers, tough CIA operatives, cunning Afghan warlords, anxious stateside soldiers' wives who do not know where their husbands have gone, and humble Afghan boys spying on the Taliban.

Not only still used, but used by the elite forces.

Obama is asleep while ambassadors are being killed, and this is all he has to offer?







Horseback Statue Commemorating US Troops of the Afghanistan Invasion is Unveiled Near One World Trade Center


A giant statue commemorating the service of soldiers who rode into battle on horseback during the invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks
Downtown Magazine NYC (s.tt...)

Obama must have been unavailable the day this statue was dedicated, and significantly enough the horse was used during an important and decisive battle.

reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies


Sorry, but what you said is irrelevant.

We are discussing how aircraft reduce the need for certain ships. We are not discussing the necessity of aircraft carriers, obviously they are necessary. Try another straw man argument, see how it goes.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by TC Mike
Its not specifically the President's remark of bayonets and horses remark, but the presumption on Obama to school Mitt on the US military as if he were a fifth grader. This insult to Mitt Romney's intelligence is really petty for Obama to do. This is not only an insult to Mitt's intelligence, but an insult to the intelligence of any American viewer watching the debate.

Obama: “You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Details and Implication

His presumption was correct. What can Mitt actually tell Obama about our foreign policy and military...OBAMA IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF!!!!

Obama has access to the best intelligence in the world. He knows things......Mitt doesn't even have the classification to know!

So yes, he can speak to Mitt as if he's a 5th grader!

Actually it is Mitt who is insulting the President's intelligence by thinking he can box with him.

If Obama as Commander in Chief was so omnipotent in all things millitary, how did the embassy attack happen?

I mean... with all the intelligence he has access to...

reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies


Though it appears two soldiers have bayonets and the other three don't. The two with bayonets maybe privates fresh out of training and green. We would laugh at them if we say them with those bayonet's.

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

 

Sorry, but what you said is irrelevant.

We are discussing how aircraft reduce the need for certain ships. We are not discussing the necessity of aircraft carriers, obviously they are necessary. Try another straw man argument, see how it goes.

You keep using the term "straw man argument"...

I don't think it means what you think it means...

Helecoptors don't only launch from aircraft carriers... learn to Navy.

reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies


Has nothing to do with Romney attempting to debate him on foreign affairs...

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

 

Has nothing to do with Romney attempting to debate him on foreign affairs...

Wait, so the embassy attack happened domestically?!?!?!?

Why hasn't the media covered this?!?!?!

reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies


Really now...

Ahoy, pirates! U.S. drones are on your case

U.S. military surveillance drones based in the Seychelles islands are patrolling off Somalia's coast in hopes of stemming a rising piracy trade.

U.S. military officials say unmanned drones called Reapers are patrolling the Indian Ocean. Small drones were previously launched from American warships off Somalia but the larger and more advanced Reapers are the first drones to be operated in the area by the U.S. military's Africa Command.

Sounds like a lot of people arguing about things they know nothing about. Including the OP.

Obama Bots are real quick to pounce on anything they can, grasping at straws.

Logistically it doesn't make sense to have a smaller fleet, even with newer technology. If we have less ships with better technology, they are useless if they are not where they need to be, but on the other hand, if we have more ships with less capability they are less effective in battle and harder to manage.

The American Navy fleet needs balance in terms of quality vs quantity. Neither one of these candidates understand this, they are faced with a harsh imperative, and while everyone is busy crying about their lame candidates, they miss the whole premise of the argument.

Our country is going to be in a world of trouble, not only because of the leadership, but the people who are being led like sheep.

reply to post by illuminated0ne


Really now: Look up the U.S.S. Independence... These are the class ships used to intercept.

"The U.S.S. Independence is the first of a projected fleet of between 50 and 100 littoral combat ships (LCSs) the US Navy will be adding to their fleet over the coming years. Built on a well-proven Australian-designed trimaran platform from Austal, the LCS is fast, stealthy and well suited to a range of offshore combat support missions.

The rear deck is suitable for two Seahawk helicopters, and can also support Harrier jump-jets if necessary. Onboard weaponry includes a 57mm Bofors gun, four .50 caliber guns, chaff, missile and torpedo decoy launchers, an 11-missile SeaRAM launcher, 8 Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles, mine detection and towed array sonar units, and a vertical launching system for ASROC-style surface missiles or Evolved Sea Sparrow type missile defenses."

They are super cool boats.

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
You keep using the term "straw man argument"...

I don't think it means what you think it means...

Helecoptors don't only launch from aircraft carriers... learn to Navy.

A straw man is when you misrepresent someones position, and then create the illusion that you refuted that position when in fact the person didn't even have that position you refuted.

My position was that aircraft are reducing the need for certain roles of ships, and less ships are needed because of that.

Your failed argument was that aircraft need aircraft carriers which are ships.

It doesn't get any more straw man than that.

Originally posted by illuminated0ne

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
You keep using the term "straw man argument"...

I don't think it means what you think it means...

Helecoptors don't only launch from aircraft carriers... learn to Navy.

A straw man is when you misrepresent someones position, and then create the illusion that you refuted that position when in fact the person didn't even have that position you refuted.

My position was that aircraft are reducing the need for certain roles of ships, and less ships are needed because of that.

Your failed argument was that aircraft need aircraft carriers which are ships.

It doesn't get any more straw man than that.

A straw man, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You are using the term incorrectly. That is all.

reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies


Yet another straw man... and another failure.

Did you forget we are arguing that aircraft are reducing the need for certain ships? Sure seems like it. Posting information about the USS Independence does nothing to refute my point... it really is another straw man.

reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies


If you would have read this topic fully, you would know I posted a link to the wiki article about straw man arguments already. I know exactly what they are, and I am using the term appropriately. I think maybe you have reading comprehension issues.

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

 

That’s why we have radio communications and helicopters with guns.

Q: Where do helecopters with guns in the middle of the ocean launch from?

A: Ships.

Glad to see you agree with me. Planes and helicopters can cover a greater area from one ship than what the ships in 1916 could cover that’s why we do not need as many ships and can still do the same job better. See I knew common sense would win out.

So as you can see this stupid debate over bayonets and horses is just a distraction. It was a great zinger that put Romney in his place illustrating perfectly that the mindset of numbers is outdated.

More is better was a saying we used when setting demolitions for IEDs it does not apply to everything. Except when it came to leave, chow, and beer.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

 

That’s why we have radio communications and helicopters with guns.

Q: Where do helecopters with guns in the middle of the ocean launch from?

A: Ships.

Glad to see you agree with me. Planes and helicopters can cover a greater area from one ship than what the ships in 1916 could cover that’s why we do not need as many ships and can still do the same job better. See I knew common sense would win out.

So as you can see this stupid debate over bayonets and horses is just a distraction. It was a great zinger that put Romney in his place illustrating perfectly that the mindset of numbers is outdated.

More is better was a saying we used when setting demolitions for IEDs it does not apply to everything. Except when it came to leave, chow, and beer.

It makes as much sense now as it did then to have a large navy. With the advances of air power, we can spread accross the globe in a hub and spoke system when needed to protect ourselves and our interests.

It never hurts to have too many weapons, only too few.