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

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.

Sadly many of the sheeple are not that inteligent so comments like Obama help the less gifted to understand his points. I quit the Republican party because I realized most of them were full of bluster but not a lot of brains. Most of them relly on religion as their basis for reallity. Scary really.

An oh yeah there is only one Christian Candidate this year and it is not Romney. His religion butchered the Christian canon.

reply to post by earthdude

Nobody in the military has needed a bayonet or a horse for many decades.

These guys are in the military, and they need horses. I mean try riding a horse...without a horse!
The Old Guard- Caisson

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........

Originally posted by Xeven

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.

Sadly many of the sheeple are not that inteligent so comments like Obama help the less gifted to understand his points. I quit the Republican party because I realized most of them were full of bluster but not a lot of brains. Most of them relly on religion as their basis for reallity. Scary really.

An oh yeah there is only one Christian Candidate this year and it is not Romney. His religion butchered the Christian canon.

You do realize your post is chock full of everything you just claimed the republican party was awash in right?

Its always amusing to see people totally blind to their own hypocrisy

But you are right about one point.......Paul is a Christian......and I like his politics

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Yes absolutely I do. I support Paul but there is nothing there.

Originally posted by Xeven
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Yes absolutely I do.

Well at least you admit it, and I commend you for that my friend!

Originally posted by buster2010

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.

Ummm.... we don't have ANY Battleships currently in service,

Originally posted by butcherguy
You didn't ever tell us what you would rather have in your hands in the hypothetical situation that I presented.

The hypothetical situation you're trying to put me in is being out of ammo, on my own, without support of either my unit or supplies, faced with an enemy combatant who happens to also be out of bullets and has a bayonet stuck on the end of his rifle. In that case, if I didn't have a bayonet on my useless rifle, I guess I'd turn it around and use the butt on him before he guts me. If I did, then I suppose we'd be having a sword fight of sorts.



Somehow, even though as someone already mentioned, bayonets can have a frightening effect on the enemy, the idea is not to get into hand to hand combat if you can avoid it at all.

For the record, I did not call you senile. In fact, I said that I never considered it.

Sure. I believe you. No problem, butcherguy.

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
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.

So do you agree we need a smaller Navy today?

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.

This might make sense if the rest of the world was still back in 1916, but they are not...

China has surpassed us in Naval power, and how many of these Bigger, faster etc ships are now antiquated and Obama doesn't see the need for newer ships, as you say for a different type of power needed.

It's a big ocean and we are spread across it like never before...I guess we can just make longer ships...lol

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Ok I will tell them. But you know those guys, they bring surfboards to battle. They ain't gonna listen to me. They shoot children with anti-tank rounds instead of running up and stabbing them with bayonets. What crazy cowboy deployed horses?

Is ryan a mental or just retarded... Come on now, it was a great zinger, a great shot.... Ryan is worse VP choice since Chaney

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

Who the heck said anything about a bayonet charge? You are really reaching.

The military uses bayonets....Obama lied...get over it.

Does it have to be a charge to use one for defense? Wow.

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

Good news people!

I have discovered information that proves I am right and the other side is right (sort of, but not really)

Yes, bayonets are still being bought. And no, no one is actually using them for their intended purpose:

The Army’s last bayonet charge happened in February 1951 during the Korean War, but there were instances during Vietnam when troops fixed bayonets during intense combat, according to the Army.

Okay, now on the flip side:

But the Army insists it has not abandoned the bayonet. While soldiers may no longer be learning how to fix a bayonet to the end of a rifle and stab an enemy, they are still learning to use the bayonet, just in a different way.

And wow, I found this pretty interesting as well:

U.S. Army units have not issued soldiers bayonets for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, said Matt Larsen, the former director of the Army’s combatives program.

Now lets get back to the matter at hand about "bayonets", and perhaps the most damning piece of evidence:

To make bayonet training relevant again, the Army got rid of the bayonet assault course, in which soldiers fixed a bayonet to the end of a rifle, ran towards a target while yelling and then rammed the bayonet into the target center. Instead, soldiers learn in combatives training how to use a knife or bayonet if someone grabs their primary weapon.

“There’s never going to be a day when we issue a pistol to every soldier, and traditionally a soldier’s secondary weapon has been his blade – his knife or bayonet,” Larsen said.

The new technique was demonstrated during last year’s Association of the United States Army convention in Washington. A soldier approached an attacker, who grabbed the end of his rifle. In the ensuing scuffle, the soldier grabbed his bayonet from a sheath on his leg and stabbed the attacker into submission.

Stripes Dot Com

As you can see, no one is fixing them on the end of their guns for a "William Wallace" charge anymore.


Today the modern battlefield has evolved and they are now using them as a standard issue combat knife.

I think this should thus end the debate over the bayonet.

I'm not sure what better of a source than "Stripes" you'll need to get the point across to people.

I believe I have demonstrated that this is now a non-issue. The issue was "bayonet charges" because the President used it in conjunction with "horses". Traditionally in the Civil War/Napoleonic Wars, infantry charges with bayonets and calvary units on horseback were used.

Why the hell are we even arguing over the minute details of this? I mean, this is the guy you guys want to vote for:



Let's all move along!

reply to post by buster2010


Face it. Obama ran on leftist premise of reducing our military capabilities, and "not weaponize" space. This is what his base expects of him. He has set about reducing our nuclear capabilities while Russia keeps theirs. He has determined to cripple the US both economically and militarily.
A rat for Russia

reply to post by MystikMushroom


So you didn't go to the website I linked?

That's ok, as long as you believe yourself.

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.

When did Romney say he wanted more battleships...lol

Let's actually quote what romney said...

“Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917,” Romney said. “The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me.”

So in other words... Our Navy in 1916 really sucked.....and it is going to suck worst under Obama by today's standards for what the Navy needs to do their mission...sound better?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Yes, that is exactly what his ridiculous analogy meant.

His supporters deny it, Romney supporters picked up on it.......oopsy.

Originally posted by Allegorical

You people talk as if a destroyer with thousands of souls on board just miles off of a countries coast (sitting duck?)

The Fletcher Class used during WWII had a crew of 329.

The Arleigh Burke Class, with 275 crew are about 33% longer and weigh almost four times as much fully loaded

. The next US destroyer class, the Zumwalt Class, are expected to be about 20% longer, 33% wider, and weigh perhaps 50% more than the Arleigh Burke Class, with a projected crew compliment of just 140 people.

Link

Please get your facts right.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Don't confuse everyone with quotes.

reply to post by timetothink


My friend, I do not have telepathic "wifi" in my brain for the hour it takes me to commute to my home.

So to answer your question, no I have not looked at your link because the first thing I did when I got home was post my new material. Believe it or not, I had to stop to buy groceries for dinner. I have a real life outside of ATS.

You are free to respond to this what whatever material you "found relevant" earlier.

Originally posted by Jordan River
Is ryan a mental or just retarded... Come on now, it was a great zinger, a great shot.... Ryan is worse VP choice once Chaney

Look the President's comment was idiotic and insulting to everyone's intelligence. That's all there is to it. He has been dismantling our nuclear capability and giving Russia the advantage in the Start talks. Get a clue, remember the remark he made the Russians when he thought no one was listening? Ya know, the "I'll be more flexible after the election" comment, assuming he will be reelected and can do whatever he wants? What Patriotic American would have ever said that to our former Cold War enemies?