Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Does the U.S. Military still use bayonets? Of course, bayonets are useful for keeping prisoners under control and for "poking an enemy to see whether he is dead"   (slate.com) divider line 261
    More: Obvious, U.S., U.S. military, Basra, Ft. Hood, prisoners under control  
•       •       •

10652 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Oct 2012 at 11:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



261 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-23 09:13:38 AM  
At Thanksgiving dinner my dad still tells us all to "fix bayonets." So yeah they're good for something.
 
2012-10-23 09:14:01 AM  
Well that settles it. It's now clear that Obama lost the debate and will lose the election.
Let's wrap this up folks, we're finished here.
 
2012-10-23 09:16:10 AM  
Is it against the Geneva Convention to fatally "poke" a bunch of unarmed combatants playing dead?
 
2012-10-23 09:16:20 AM  
"Fewer" is still more than "none".
 
2012-10-23 09:29:08 AM  
Is this really a talking point? That's just sad. So long America, we hardly knew ya.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-23 09:31:49 AM  

notmtwain: Is it against the Geneva Convention to fatally "poke" a bunch of unarmed combatants playing dead?


Fatally, yes, although if are playing dead it would be kind of difficult to claim that you intended to kill them.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-23 09:34:08 AM  

sammyk: Is this really a talking point? That's just sad. So long America, we hardly knew ya.


It seems to be becoming one. It's kind of sad, because the point what we have a smaller military because we rely on a fewer number of more effective high tech weapons instead of mass quantities of simple ones is a good point.
 
2012-10-23 09:40:22 AM  
I see the "liberal media" is running with this "BONGFARTO SEZ THERES NO BAY-O-NETS ANYMORE" thing.
 
2012-10-23 09:41:41 AM  
A) the point he was making is that what constituted appropriate military technology 100 years ago often doesn't constitute appropriate military technology today
B) he said "fewer" bayonets, not "no bayonets." so, yes, the marines still train with them. but he was right both semantically and in the broader sense of his point.
C) arguing this only highlights what an "oh, snap" moment it was and keeps it in the news cycle. a smart person would move on. but then nobody ever accused republicans of being smart.
 
2012-10-23 09:51:42 AM  
A friend of mine was a British soldier in the Falklands war. The fog was so thick during one battle that they decided on a bayonet charge.
He still has PTSD/screaming nightmares about it to this very day.
 
2012-10-23 10:12:52 AM  
Please double down on this, Cons.

Also, can we turn one of these threads into a military pony thread?? please.

thinklikeahorse.org
 
2012-10-23 10:32:47 AM  

what_now: Also, can we turn one of these threads into a military pony thread??


graphics8.nytimes.com

"Never was so much owed by so many to such an absolutely spanking horse ballerina. Godspeed through President Fart Teleprompter's eventing, Rafalca. May cross-canter carry you through your renvers true"
 
2012-10-23 10:55:51 AM  
How about dressage horses with frickin' bayonets attached to their heads?
 
2012-10-23 11:12:24 AM  

sammyk: Is this really a talking point? That's just sad. So long America, we hardly knew ya.


From outside the echo chamber, the trivial crap that attracts the Eye of Sauron that passes for civics and political discourse in the States is largely incomprehensible.
 
2012-10-23 11:12:32 AM  

James!: "Fewer" is still more than "none".


This.

/Exactly, this.
 
2012-10-23 11:13:29 AM  

sigdiamond2000: I see the "liberal media" is running with this "BONGFARTO SEZ THERES NO BAY-O-NETS ANYMORE" thing.


Wait, do you honestly think that Slate doesn't count as "liberal media"?
 
2012-10-23 11:14:14 AM  
I've never gotten a bayonet outside of basic training, even when I deployed to Kosovo, nor did anyone else in my scout troop. It's pretty safe to say that while some military personnel might get them mostly out of custom, realistically there is no way there are that many bayonets out there compared to WWI.
 
2012-10-23 11:14:37 AM  
I have one of these and they're pretty much my main line of defense in a zombie invasion:

farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2012-10-23 11:16:12 AM  

oldfarthenry: A friend of mine was a British soldier in the Falklands war. The fog was so thick during one battle that they decided on a bayonet charge.
He still has PTSD/screaming nightmares about it to this very day.


It's a persuasive argument for keeping them, really. Despite the nasty aspect of being the guy shaking quivering intestines off his gun barrel, it's better than being the guy on the ground who formerly possessed said sausage casings.


Bayonet charges were devised to indicate you should really give up or face a gutting. They are in the same class as using a trebuchet to fling corpses over walls.
 
2012-10-23 11:17:00 AM  
I"ve been out for a while, but I was in the boot part of the Army and we had messes 'o bayonets. We DID do bayonet drills from time to time, but we ended up using them mostly as utility knives. For which they are very well suited.
 
2012-10-23 11:17:07 AM  
First paragraph

Does the U.S. military still use bayonets much?
Yes.


end of the article....
While the use of the bayonet is rare, the use of horses is even rarer. The military still maintains the historic 1st Cavalry Division out of Ft. Hood, Texas, and the division's horse detachment still sometimes mounts up for the occasional charge-but these charges tend to take place only as part of parades, historical ceremonies, and fairs.

WTF?!?


All Marines learn to use bayonets during their basic martial arts training. Some of this training takes place on the Bayonet Assault Course, upon which Marines are unleashed to bayonet everything in sight. Learning proficiency in basic bayoneting techniques is part of qualifying for a tan belt, which is required of every recruit.

It was plastic you dolt! 88-94' Never saw one again.
 
2012-10-23 11:17:33 AM  

Dynascape: I have one of these and they're pretty much my main line of defense in a zombie invasion:

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 300x200]


You're not going to survive too long then.
 
2012-10-23 11:17:53 AM  
I remember hearing that an Argentinian unit that had held out for days against British attacks (in the Falklands), until the British Commander had finally had enough and contacted them with the ultimatum ~ "You either surrender now or I will order the Battalion to fix bayonets and charge the hill" (knowing the numbers were very much against them, the hold outs did the sensible thing.)
 
2012-10-23 11:18:07 AM  
So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.
 
2012-10-23 11:18:52 AM  
cache.gizmodo.com
 
2012-10-23 11:19:42 AM  

PsyLord: Dynascape: I have one of these and they're pretty much my main line of defense in a zombie invasion:

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 300x200]

You're not going to survive too long then.


Its a good main weapon.

Plus that spike bayonet is a lot more wicked than pictures make you believe. Its also insanely sharp.

Ah, I want to go home and smell it. Cosmoline is one of my favorite smells ever.
 
2012-10-23 11:19:51 AM  
I wish he would have said, "If we needed to sink the Bismarck today, we'd send a Tomahawk missile to do the job - we wouldn't need a flotilla of battleships, destroyers and scout planes for the job."

But that might have ticked off the Germans a bit.
 
2012-10-23 11:20:05 AM  
farm9.staticflickr.com

"Cold hard steel"
"They don't like it up 'em"
"Don't Panic!"
"Fuzzy Wuzzies"
etc etc
 
2012-10-23 11:20:07 AM  

pag1107: [cache.gizmodo.com image 531x602]


Looks just like the ones from 1916
 
2012-10-23 11:21:10 AM  

FlashHarry: A) the point he was making is that what constituted appropriate military technology 100 years ago often doesn't constitute appropriate military technology today
B) he said "fewer" bayonets, not "no bayonets." so, yes, the marines still train with them. but he was right both semantically and in the broader sense of his point.
C) arguing this only highlights what an "oh, snap" moment it was and keeps it in the news cycle. a smart person would move on. but then nobody ever accused republicans of being smart.


Yeah, I don't know why the GOP is keeping this alive, but they sure are trying their best. Seems counterproductive to me.

But then again, a significant part of the country thinks the GOP is good for them, so....
 
2012-10-23 11:21:16 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder


They do, his name is Steve, and he's always drinking milk straight from the container. What a dick. But at least he's on time with the rent and chips in for the movie channels, even though he's never home.
 
2012-10-23 11:21:25 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.


We, U.S. Americans, should have more maps. Like in the Iraqs, and such as...

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-10-23 11:21:36 AM  
America once more rallies the mind-numbing power of the derp brigade.
 
2012-10-23 11:21:38 AM  
yep, but it was never about bayonets. It was about the navy. Who brought up bayonets and horses?
 
2012-10-23 11:21:53 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: It was plastic you dolt! 88-94' Never saw one again.


Yup. But '03-'07.

There are probably more training "bayonets" than there are actual bayonets. I do recall seeing them on armory inventory, though, even though no one ever used them.

/never learned to affix one to a rifle/remove one from a rifle or anything like that.
 
2012-10-23 11:22:41 AM  

vpb: notmtwain: Is it against the Geneva Convention to fatally "poke" a bunch of unarmed combatants playing dead?

Fatally, yes, although if are playing dead it would be kind of difficult to claim that you intended to kill them.


Plus they could have been spys.
 
2012-10-23 11:23:01 AM  

sammyk: Is this really a talking point? That's just sad. So long America, we hardly knew ya.


Tweeted by none other than Sean Hannity during the debate, so it's official derp
 
2012-10-23 11:23:12 AM  

EZ Writer: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

We, U.S. Americans, should have more maps. Like in the Iraqs, and such as...

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x661]


To be fair, though... He was talking about the Med. Still...

/I know... "Fair" is not a requirement.
//Welcometofark.jpg
 
2012-10-23 11:23:18 AM  

pag1107: [cache.gizmodo.com image 531x602]


OK now that is cool. Completely pointless but cool nonetheless. Hell my wife who knows nothing about weapons asked me once about the gears of war lancer, "Couldn't they just carry more bullets instead the weight of the chainsaw and fuel?"
 
2012-10-23 11:23:57 AM  
In North Korea, they used to (up until a decade or so ago, maybe to the present day) use prisoners and kidnapped Japanese and South Koreans for bayonet practice. They would tie them to stakes and have the soldiers have a go at them. Any soldier refusing would, well, become a prisoner and goto 10.
 
2012-10-23 11:24:32 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: How about dressage horses with frickin' bayonets attached to their heads?


As a former soldier, I believe that would be badass. So long as we can make it look like a Frazetta painting.
 
2012-10-23 11:24:55 AM  
Random cool history about Bayonets:

"Significantly, the front sight of the M38 was positioned in such a way that the Model 91/30's cruciform bayonet could not be mounted to the muzzle even if a soldier obtained one. This decision had disastrous consequences for the rear area troops when the Wehrmacht blitzkrieg overran them. Thousands of Red Army soldiers died on Mauser 98K bayonets.

The slaughter of the rear area troops led directly to the development of the Model M44 Mosin."
 
2012-10-23 11:25:54 AM  

calm like a bomb: sigdiamond2000: I see the "liberal media" is running with this "BONGFARTO SEZ THERES NO BAY-O-NETS ANYMORE" thing.

I'm surprised you need this, since Rmoney was the one who got raped last night, but here you go:

[cdn2.mamapop.com image 580x239]


I'm pretty sure that your sarcasm detector needs to be calibrated.
 
2012-10-23 11:25:58 AM  

EZ Writer: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

We, U.S. Americans, should have more maps. Like in the Iraqs, and such as...

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x661]


Mediterranean Sea, ever heard of it?

Those areas of The Iraq and Gobbles, such as, wouldn't be to tough to get through, for Iranians that have maps.
 
2012-10-23 11:26:06 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Well that settles it. It's now clear that Obama lost the debate and will lose the election.
Let's wrap this up folks, we're finished here.


You forgot the riot threats. Now we really do have a use for those bayonets.

/look it was a silly point on Obama's part...last I heard that 70% of the Earth's surface was covered in water and those carriers he talked about still need support ships...LOTS of support ships...the last thing we need is a smaller navy
//Obama looked like a person desperate to make Romney look bad and he simply didn't do it
///Obama's people had to immediately go into spin control mode when he stated categorically that sequestration wouldn't happen and the military's budget wouldn't be getting slashed too deep...fact is Obama can't guarantee jack shiat on that issue and he knows it and blaming Congress is lame..fact is bayonets and horses may be all that our military can afford under Obama in the coming years
 
2012-10-23 11:26:12 AM  
An article in Slate about military affairs? To paraphrase Patton's quote about Time magazine, they know as much about war as they do about fornication.

However, this issue has been addressed previously:

www.strayhorn.net
 
2012-10-23 11:26:44 AM  

Dynascape: PsyLord: Dynascape: I have one of these and they're pretty much my main line of defense in a zombie invasion:

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 300x200]

You're not going to survive too long then.

Its a good main weapon.

Plus that spike bayonet is a lot more wicked than pictures make you believe. Its also insanely sharp.

Ah, I want to go home and smell it. Cosmoline is one of my favorite smells ever.


Oh, I have no doubt that it is sharp. It's just that against zombies, the only effective area is the head. So that means that you will be thrusting at one zombie after another with that thing, hoping to hit their orbital cavity and the brain. Looks like after a few dozen thrusts, you might get tired out due to the weight of that thing. Plus the length of the rifle makes maneuvering the item a bit difficult in close quarter or if there is a crowd of zombies.
 
2012-10-23 11:27:12 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.


I like to think its more a case of we know Romney is almost as big of a dick as the previous president, so lets focus on the more fun things.

The educated peeps on this planet have looked at a map or two, most Republicans would probably burn an atlas as science, iberal propaganda or the devil's work.
 
2012-10-23 11:28:05 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.


Some guy pays rent in Iran and Syria?
 
2012-10-23 11:28:31 AM  
I used my bayonet to probe for mines. They didn't work well, so I switched to my other large knife, which worked better.

/mine clearing is a weird job
 
2012-10-23 11:28:46 AM  

Egoy3k: calm like a bomb: sigdiamond2000: I see the "liberal media" is running with this "BONGFARTO SEZ THERES NO BAY-O-NETS ANYMORE" thing.

I'm surprised you need this, since Rmoney was the one who got raped last night, but here you go:

[cdn2.mamapop.com image 580x239]

I'm pretty sure that your sarcasm detector needs to be calibrated.


Perhaps. I did note a recent deficiency in the caffeinated beverage level.
 
2012-10-23 11:29:39 AM  
It's going to suck when that multi-purpose bayonet/barbwire cutter isn't around when you need to cut through some barbwire.
 
2012-10-23 11:30:47 AM  
I am glad we are focused on the important issues.
 
2012-10-23 11:31:11 AM  

PsyLord: Dynascape: PsyLord: Dynascape: I have one of these and they're pretty much my main line of defense in a zombie invasion:

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 300x200]

You're not going to survive too long then.

Its a good main weapon.

Plus that spike bayonet is a lot more wicked than pictures make you believe. Its also insanely sharp.

Ah, I want to go home and smell it. Cosmoline is one of my favorite smells ever.

Oh, I have no doubt that it is sharp. It's just that against zombies, the only effective area is the head. So that means that you will be thrusting at one zombie after another with that thing, hoping to hit their orbital cavity and the brain. Looks like after a few dozen thrusts, you might get tired out due to the weight of that thing. Plus the length of the rifle makes maneuvering the item a bit difficult in close quarter or if there is a crowd of zombies.


Keep in mind, the buttpad is also a plate of steel. Would make an effective club as well.
 
2012-10-23 11:31:15 AM  

Joe Blowme: yep, but it was never about bayonets. It was about the navy. Who brought up bayonets and horses?


You're right, it wasn't about bayonets or horses. It was an example of how technology has advanced and we don't need to compare the amount of WWI ships vs. today. It's a stupid metric and as Obama pointed out doesn't relate to today.
 
2012-10-23 11:31:45 AM  

IAmRight: Yup. But '03-'07.

There are probably more training "bayonets" than there are actual bayonets. I do recall seeing them on armory inventory, though, even though no one ever used them.

/never learned to affix one to a rifle/remove one from a rifle or anything like that.


I deployed with one. The Marine Corps has actually tried to incorporate more training with them in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (it replaced LINE training).

The Corps even developed a new more awesome bigger bayonet which looks sort of like a k-bar that took steroids. I carried mine with me in Iraq, even on the plane (but they took away my nail clippers). I think I used it to engage a 'steak' that needed turning over on the 'grill' we made out of a 55gallon drum.

That said, the President was right. We need to spend our money more intelligently. Knives on the end of our rifles are not as tactically important as they once were. Functional satellite communications are key. We don't need to buy 2,000 more tanks. We are not using all the ones we have already. We need to spend the money on our tactical and strategic needs. President Obama had an ironclad point. There is no way for Romney to defend his position. (maybe if he had some more battleships...)
 
2012-10-23 11:32:15 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Mediterranean Sea, ever heard of it?


EZ Writer: To be fair, though... He was talking about the Med. Still...



Yup
 
2012-10-23 11:32:33 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: It's a stupid metric and as Obama pointed out doesn't relate to today.


When has that ever stopped the media?
 
2012-10-23 11:32:51 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.


How about indicting the President of Iran for inciting genocide? Not even getting into the dispute over the most accurate translation of Ahmadinejad's words, doesn't the idea that his words incited genocide require that genocide happens subsequent to the statement being made?

Apparently not. Can anyone imagine arresting a US President for saying (not taking any explicit action, saying) that a nation we see as a threat must be destroyed?
 
2012-10-23 11:33:13 AM  

Valiente: Bayonet charges were devised to indicate you should really give up or face a gutting. They are in the same class as using a trebuchet to fling corpses over walls.


The bayonet has one primary advantage. You never need to reload it. 

And should you find yourself in a situation where you don't have time to reload, it's generally considered advisable to bring company on your trip to hell.
 
2012-10-23 11:33:28 AM  

vpb: notmtwain: Is it against the Geneva Convention to fatally "poke" a bunch of unarmed combatants playing dead?

Fatally, yes, although if are playing dead it would be kind of difficult to claim that you intended to kill them.


That's why soldiers should urinate on any bodies lying around the battlefield. It's a non-lethal way to see if they are dead.
 
2012-10-23 11:34:23 AM  
Ever see an m16 with a bayonet attached? The rifle is already fairly useless as anything other than a lead launcher or a wiffle bat, but you put that bayonet on there, qnd it's simply 100% grade a hilarity.
 
2012-10-23 11:35:38 AM  
Are bayonets useful and still used? Yes.

Are they central to the strength and strategic might of the military the way they might have been 100 years ago? No.
 
2012-10-23 11:36:59 AM  
I want a chainsaw bayonet now... Gears of War here I come!!!
 
2012-10-23 11:37:20 AM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: At Thanksgiving dinner my dad still tells us all to "fix bayonets." So yeah they're good for something.


While at a Buffalo Wild Wings (the only time I ever went), there was a table full of soldiers watching the Army/Navy game chanting FIXED BAYONETS the entire time, making for a rather dismal environment, even though it was to be expected at BWW.
 
2012-10-23 11:37:28 AM  
But all our fixed bayonets are broken! Unless we unfixed the fixed and fix 'em, we'll be in a fix!

/Obscure?
 
2012-10-23 11:37:31 AM  

manimal2878: Are bayonets useful and still used? Yes.

Are they central to the strength and strategic might of the military the way they might have been 100 years ago? No.


Until both sides run out of ammo...

/Or you find a camper in CoD
 
2012-10-23 11:38:03 AM  
From the politics thread on this:

Zumaki: All of this thread and no one's mentioned this:
i632.photobucket.com
Bayonet
i632.photobucket.com
Bayonet-mount knife

They call them 'bayonets' still because it's shorter. We don't use those long things anymore.

 

This is still the stupidest point of the entire election season - completely missing the forest for the trees.
 
2012-10-23 11:41:04 AM  
We should issue bayonets to Fox News and other news orgs so that they'll get the point.
 
2012-10-23 11:41:44 AM  
I can't see replacing the bayonet assault course with more PT. They ran us through three times and we were exhasted. Great fun though.
 
2012-10-23 11:41:49 AM  

Grungehamster: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

How about indicting the President of Iran for inciting genocide? Not even getting into the dispute over the most accurate translation of Ahmadinejad's words, doesn't the idea that his words incited genocide require that genocide happens subsequent to the statement being made?

Apparently not. Can anyone imagine arresting a US President for saying (not taking any explicit action, saying) that a nation we see as a threat must be destroyed?


I have read the Old Testament and I am pretty sure I am on the out .. alas I am not one of the Chosen Ones ... thankfully my ancestors were in the UK and Australia and not in Palestine when the fundamentalist invaded....
 
2012-10-23 11:41:55 AM  

EZ Writer: manimal2878: Are bayonets useful and still used? Yes.

Are they central to the strength and strategic might of the military the way they might have been 100 years ago? No.

Until both sides run out of ammo...

/Or you find a camper in CoD


The last bayonet charge was in the Korean war for the US. Most of the time, a Knife is just as useful, and more common to see. Had a friend in Iraq who had to open a few necks during house clearing with one. I don't think he ever saw a bayonet during his time there.
 
2012-10-23 11:42:53 AM  

manimal2878: Are bayonets useful and still used? Yes.

Are they central to the strength and strategic might of the military the way they might have been 100 years ago? No.


The fact that people seem too thick to get this astounds me. Name one country whose deep water Navy has any chance against ours even with less ships. I get that Romney said "we can't know where the next threat will come from", but unless this is his contengency for when the Atlanteans come up from the depths with their lost technology I just don't see what potential threats would require a larger naval fleet than we have right now.
 
2012-10-23 11:43:56 AM  

EZ Writer: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

We, U.S. Americans, should have more maps. Like in the Iraqs, and such as...

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x661]


At some point it will occur to you that Syria and Lebanon are already being used as bases of operation for Iranian operatives/military personnel, affording them access to sea lanes that they would not have trying to depart from ports along their own coasts...and Romney was right.
 
2012-10-23 11:44:01 AM  
Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.


Actually, Romney said Syria was a strategic ally of Iran because of their access to the sea; that sea being the Mediterranean, because it significantly decreases the distance traveled by oil tankers. Romneys "gaff" was not explaining it to the voting majority who couldn't pass 6th grade geography. You want to know why politicians are vague when they talk? Because simple shiat like that confuses dumb farks like you, leading you to vote for the oppoent. The last thing they want to do is be specific, the masses would be mind farked. They would feel uncomfortable not understanding what they are hearing and vote for the other guy. You are the lowest common demoninator politicians talk to. Fark. You.
 
2012-10-23 11:44:14 AM  
I was shocked to see a US Army shotgun fitted with a bayonet. Now that is CLOSE combat. My hat's off to anyone who is too close to use a shotgun and has to stab an enemy to death.
 
2012-10-23 11:44:54 AM  

WMCB: I used my bayonet to probe for mines. They didn't work well, so I switched to my other large knife, which worked better.

/mine clearing is a weird job


I hope your other large knife was made out of titanium, plastic, or another non-ferrous material.

/Mine clearing IS a weird job, and it is even more weird when you use the wrong tools.
 
2012-10-23 11:45:48 AM  

Dynascape: I have one of these and they're pretty much my main line of defense in a zombie invasion:

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 300x200]


M44? Love mine.

i100.photobucket.com

Also:
i100.photobucket.com
i100.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-23 11:46:00 AM  

Gwyrddu: I've never gotten a bayonet outside of basic training, even when I deployed to Kosovo, nor did anyone else in my scout troop.


I didn't get to play with those until, WEBLOS.
 
2012-10-23 11:46:21 AM  

Antimatter: EZ Writer: manimal2878: Are bayonets useful and still used? Yes.

Are they central to the strength and strategic might of the military the way they might have been 100 years ago? No.

Until both sides run out of ammo...

/Or you find a camper in CoD

The last bayonet charge was in the Korean war for the US. Most of the time, a Knife is just as useful, and more common to see. Had a friend in Iraq who had to open a few necks during house clearing with one. I don't think he ever saw a bayonet during his time there.


Yeah women & kids tend to be more easily disposed of that way - mind you the preferred method these days is either aerial bombing/rockets or artillery from afar (no one will ever convince me that Iraq was a stand up fight ... it was Shock & Awe ... or more honestly Terrorise, Overwhelm and Distort the Truth.)
 
2012-10-23 11:46:32 AM  

EZ Writer: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

We, U.S. Americans, should have more maps. Like in the Iraqs, and such as...

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x661]


Mind you, if you read it as:

"Syria is Iran's best chance of access to the Med (and Israel), and they do have a de facto border given that Iraq is for the near future Iran's little biatch",

it's not nearly as stupid. There is some geopolitical reality behind the statement. A Iran with Iraq and Syria as their sphere of influence is a bigger problem than just Iran.
 
2012-10-23 11:46:46 AM  

Grungehamster: manimal2878: Are bayonets useful and still used? Yes.

Are they central to the strength and strategic might of the military the way they might have been 100 years ago? No.

The fact that people seem too thick to get this astounds me. Name one country whose deep water Navy has any chance against ours even with less ships. I get that Romney said "we can't know where the next threat will come from", but unless this is his contingency for when the Atlanteans come up from the depths with their lost technology I just don't see what potential threats would require a larger naval fleet than we have right now.


hdhale: EZ Writer: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

We, U.S. Americans, should have more maps. Like in the Iraqs, and such as...

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x661]

At some point it will occur to you that Syria and Lebanon are already being used as bases of operation for Iranian operatives/military personnel, affording them access to sea lanes that they would not have trying to depart from ports along their own coasts...and Romney was right.


I think people are very literal and 'surface level' in the analysis of the debates. People just want to jump on the other guy and point and laugh.
 
2012-10-23 11:46:48 AM  
I gots what I think is a Viet Nam-era bayonet that's about two foot long. It's real imressive when I pull it out to show friends...And works well to discourage door-to-door salesmen. "Just cleaning my tools, son"

/Hand-me-down from WWII (as in Pearl Harbor) vet with 35 years service.
//took it away rom him when the dementia kicked in for good.
 
2012-10-23 11:46:52 AM  

what_now: Please double down on this, Cons.

Also, can we turn one of these threads into a military pony thread?? please.

[thinklikeahorse.org image 360x244]


As you requested...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-23 11:47:28 AM  

hdhale: /look it was a silly point on Obama's part...last I heard that 70% of the Earth's surface was covered in water and those carriers he talked about still need support ships...LOTS of support ships...the last thing we need is a smaller navy


The real problem for Obama's scornful 'argument' is that The US Navy has fewer ships than the Admiralty recommends it have to do its job. The current fleet is 287 ships, the recommendation is for 313. Since no one is recommending we build anything but the most technologically-capable fleet, Obama's comment was a back-handed slap by a sitting Commander-in-Chief to his own highest-level naval staff.
 
2012-10-23 11:48:24 AM  
Hey article author (and subby)...

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-23 11:49:06 AM  
It's a sad commentary on the debate observers that THIS is the most commented on statement.

/ a horse for every soldier
//and a bayonet in every horse.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-23 11:49:30 AM  
 
2012-10-23 11:50:25 AM  
we also still use horses, but in smaller numbers and in a lot of ways as vestigial decorative equipment. Yes, they are still useful, but not in the same way (or in the same numbers) as was in their heyday.

Silly teabaggers desperate to be technically correct. The point stands, military readiness is not a matter of numbers of ships or bayonets.

/forest meet trees
 
2012-10-23 11:50:32 AM  
Despite the complete lack of truth, this will become a Republican talking point, regardless of how many times people point out that Obama never said the army don't use bayonets.
 
2012-10-23 11:50:36 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I was shocked to see a US Army shotgun fitted with a bayonet. Now that is CLOSE combat. My hat's off to anyone who is too close to use a shotgun and has to stab an enemy to death.


I ho[e they were solids and not buckshot, cause the later is (technically LOL) against the something or other Convention ... mmm vaguely remember it starting with 'G' ... Genesis, no that's not right ... nope it escapes me, pretty sure it must be one of those old laws that needs to be removed from the books ... like 'unnatural sex acts'.
 
2012-10-23 11:51:48 AM  

meyerkev: Mind you, if you read it as:

"Syria is Iran's best chance of access to the Med (and Israel), and they do have a de facto border given that Iraq is for the near future Iran's little biatch",

it's not nearly as stupid. There is some geopolitical reality behind the statement. A Iran with Iraq and Syria as their sphere of influence is a bigger problem than just Iran.


So Iran has access to the Mediterranean thanks to Romney's foreign policy team (who are mostly Bush administration alumni).

One more reason we can't give these people power again.
 
2012-10-23 11:52:03 AM  

Snarfangel: vpb: notmtwain: Is it against the Geneva Convention to fatally "poke" a bunch of unarmed combatants playing dead?

Fatally, yes, although if are playing dead it would be kind of difficult to claim that you intended to kill them.

That's why soldiers should urinate on any bodies lying around the battlefield. It's a non-lethal way to see if they are dead.


I found a pigs blood sprinkler works even better
 
2012-10-23 11:52:40 AM  

Dynascape: PsyLord: Dynascape: I have one of these and they're pretty much my main line of defense in a zombie invasion:

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 300x200]

You're not going to survive too long then.

Its a good main weapon.

Plus that spike bayonet is a lot more wicked than pictures make you believe. Its also insanely sharp.

Ah, I want to go home and smell it. Cosmoline is one of my favorite smells ever.


As much as I admire the Mosin, if you're relying on an archaic, fussy, 5-shot bolt gun for the ZA, you're well & truly farked. The neato Nazi-skewer on the end isn't much good to you at the distances the gun is most effective at.

/WHAR BAYINETS WHAR
 
2012-10-23 11:52:57 AM  
 
2012-10-23 11:53:13 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Fark. You can buy a bayonet lug kit for your Remington 870 on eBay.


That gave me an idea. Did an Amazon search, and yes, it's already begun: Link 

Read (and post) comments.
 
2012-10-23 11:54:07 AM  

gerrymander: hdhale: /look it was a silly point on Obama's part...last I heard that 70% of the Earth's surface was covered in water and those carriers he talked about still need support ships...LOTS of support ships...the last thing we need is a smaller navy

The real problem for Obama's scornful 'argument' is that The US Navy has fewer ships than the Admiralty recommends it have to do its job. The current fleet is 287 ships, the recommendation is for 313. Since no one is recommending we build anything but the most technologically-capable fleet, Obama's comment was a back-handed slap by a sitting Commander-in-Chief to his own highest-level naval staff.


We don't use that term here in the States. It's the Secretary of the Navy.

BTW: Obama doesn't give out permission slips for the Navy to build things, Congress does. Also the Navy is larger by ship count than in 2007..... It was a stupid statement by Romney using a hundred year old stat as the basis for more ships. He was wrong and Obama pointed out how wrong he was.
 
2012-10-23 11:55:00 AM  

Gunny Highway: hdhale: At some point it will occur to you that Syria and Lebanon are already being used as bases of operation for Iranian operatives/military personnel, affording them access to sea lanes that they would not have trying to depart from ports along their own coasts...and Romney was right.

I think people are very literal and 'surface level' in the analysis of the debates. People just want to jump on the other guy and point and laugh.


And some people have a sense of humor and don't take everything so seriously. We also enjoy the occasional LULZ.

Also, I'll point out again where I said:

EZ Writer: To be fair, though... He was talking about the Med. Still...

 
2012-10-23 11:55:43 AM  
Last time I used a bayonet was in a parade. I was in the Indiana Air National Guard and we were marching in Brazil (you just pronounced it wrong) Indiana. Never march with a bunch of airmen with bayonets. They bunch up. They move their rifle arm. You have to watch the bayonet right in front of you, bouncing and weaving like a metal cobra about to strike.

The time previous, we bayoneted a lot of sand bags along the Wabash. The the front end loader scooped them up and tried to separate the sand from the plastic sand bags. Got an Indiana Volunteer Ribbon for that.
 
2012-10-23 11:56:24 AM  

Langdon_777: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I was shocked to see a US Army shotgun fitted with a bayonet. Now that is CLOSE combat. My hat's off to anyone who is too close to use a shotgun and has to stab an enemy to death.

I ho[e they were solids and not buckshot, cause the later is (technically LOL) against the something or other Convention ... mmm vaguely remember it starting with 'G' ... Genesis, no that's not right ... nope it escapes me, pretty sure it must be one of those old laws that needs to be removed from the books ... like 'unnatural sex acts'.


Geneva. And no it's not.

Nor is it against the Hague Conventions (which do have something to say about projectiles that cause unnecessary suffering but don't address shotguns shooting shot). And even if it was against the Hague Conventions, the US isn't a signatory to them (we generally abide by them though). And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).
 
2012-10-23 11:56:49 AM  
I have a Japanese bayonet and scabbard from Iwo Jima. The metal scabbard has a very definite, straight-edge dent in the tail end of it. I really don't want to know how it got there.
 
2012-10-23 11:56:51 AM  

jaytkay: In May 2004, approximately 20 British troops in Basra were ambushed and forced out of their vehicles by about 100 shiate militia fighters. When ammunition ran low, the British troops fixed bayonets and charged the enemy. About 20 militiamen were killed in the assault without any British deaths.


Thanks. Does that mean the United States use fewer Bayonets and Horses than in WWI? Does that mean we should have 1,000 ships?
 
2012-10-23 11:57:31 AM  

gerrymander: hdhale: /look it was a silly point on Obama's part...last I heard that 70% of the Earth's surface was covered in water and those carriers he talked about still need support ships...LOTS of support ships...the last thing we need is a smaller navy

The real problem for Obama's scornful 'argument' is that The US Navy has fewer ships than the Admiralty recommends it have to do its job. The current fleet is 287 ships, the recommendation is for 313. Since no one is recommending we build anything but the most technologically-capable fleet, Obama's comment was a back-handed slap by a sitting Commander-in-Chief to his own highest-level naval staff.


Obama's record...as brief as it was in the Senate...regarding military spending generally is he hates it and usually voted against it. He does demonstrate however the adeptness of a contortionist when it came time to take credit and slap himself on the back for getting bin Laden--something done thanks to years of intell work dating back to 2001 and the money spent on equipment and training by the Bush administration on Special Operations forces.

No, Mr. Obama may lecture me any time on the difficulties of growing up as a mixed race child with a mixed religious background. He may also lecture me on the best places to get good food in Chicago. He may never presume to lecture anyone on military issues.
 
2012-10-23 11:58:09 AM  
So long as they don't cancel the power-armour program.
images.wikia.com
 
2012-10-23 11:58:13 AM  

JesseL: Langdon_777: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I was shocked to see a US Army shotgun fitted with a bayonet. Now that is CLOSE combat. My hat's off to anyone who is too close to use a shotgun and has to stab an enemy to death.

I ho[e they were solids and not buckshot, cause the later is (technically LOL) against the something or other Convention ... mmm vaguely remember it starting with 'G' ... Genesis, no that's not right ... nope it escapes me, pretty sure it must be one of those old laws that needs to be removed from the books ... like 'unnatural sex acts'.

Geneva. And no it's not.

Nor is it against the Hague Conventions (which do have something to say about projectiles that cause unnecessary suffering but don't address shotguns shooting shot). And even if it was against the Hague Conventions, the US isn't a signatory to them (we generally abide by them though). And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).


But other than that, spot on?
 
2012-10-23 11:59:23 AM  

SupplySideJesus: As much as I admire the Mosin, if you're relying on an archaic, fussy, 5-shot bolt gun for the ZA, you're well & truly farked.


Fussy?
You put in ammo, cycle the bolt, and pull the trigger. It fires. Cycle the bolt and pull the trigger again. It fires. Repeat until it's out of ammo.
What's fussy about a Mosin?
 
2012-10-23 11:59:28 AM  

JesseL: And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).


Where'd you get that silly notion?

www.davejenkins.com
 
2012-10-23 12:00:18 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

Actually, Romney said Syria was a strategic ally of Iran because of their access to the sea; that sea being the Mediterranean, because it significantly decreases the distance traveled by oil tankers. Romneys "gaff" was not explaining it to the voting majority who couldn't pass 6th grade geography. You want to know why politicians are vague when they talk? Because simple shiat like that confuses dumb farks like you, leading you to vote for the oppoent. The last thing they want to do is be specific, the masses would be mind farked. They would feel uncomfortable not understanding what they are hearing and vote for the other guy. You are the lowest common demoninator politicians talk to. Fark. You.


Uhm, talk about rationalization of a poor point. Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t.
 
2012-10-23 12:00:29 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Fark. You can buy a bayonet lug kit for your Remington 870 on eBay.

That gave me an idea. Did an Amazon search, and yes, it's already begun: Link 

Read (and post) comments.


Amazon reviews are the best.

Buy this. It is excellent. I have never understood why the US decided to cut spending on these bayonets. We are less prepared, militarily, for a horse and bayonet war than we were in 1920!

If we were fighting World War I today, of what use would all of those boats where they land planes be? How could those nuclear boats that go underwater possibly help us in the trenches of Western Europe? So much for all o fthis "strategy". Oohh, so bla bla bal, Bin Laden, bla bla bla, Qadaffi, bla bla bla, no terrorist attack on US soil. Tell that to the Kaiser.
 
2012-10-23 12:00:59 PM  

EZ Writer: And some people have a sense of humor and don't take everything so seriously. We also enjoy the occasional LULZ.


Eh.
 
2012-10-23 12:01:40 PM  

Dynascape: I have one of these and they're pretty much my main line of defense in a zombie invasion:

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 300x200]


Nice Mosin. I have one as well, no bayonet though. Mine is stored away. Next time I get it out I need to do a good track of exactly what model, year, location of manufacture, etc. I know its one of the full length ones, its huge, and heavy.


I have a DTI AR-15 flat top (red-dot sight, 20 round mag, etc) doing front line duty for me. Along with the Springfield 1911a1 (.45 of course, custom grips & sights) and my Beretta PX4 9mm (daily carry, loaded with Hornady Zombie Max 115gr JHP). Wife carries a Ruger LCP .380 w laser sight.
 
2012-10-23 12:02:24 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: Thanks. Does that mean the United States use fewer Bayonets and Horses than in WWI? Does that mean we should have 1,000 ships?


No.

I simply find the recent use of bayonets surprising and interesting.

Anyone who is disputing the President's point (Slate wasn't) is either a dishonest asshole or an idiot (or both).
 
2012-10-23 12:03:05 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Actually, Romney said Syria was a strategic ally of Iran because of their access to the sea; that sea being the Mediterranean, because it significantly decreases the distance traveled by oil tankers. Romneys "gaff" was not explaining it to the voting majority who couldn't pass 6th grade geography. You want to know why politicians are vague when they talk? Because simple shiat like that confuses dumb farks like you, leading you to vote for the oppoent. The last thing they want to do is be specific, the masses would be mind farked. They would feel uncomfortable not understanding what they are hearing and vote for the other guy. You are the lowest common demoninator politicians talk to. Fark. You.


So your arguments is that Iranian oil tankers sail through Iraq to Syria and then enter the Mediterranean.
 
2012-10-23 12:03:25 PM  

hdhale: Obama's record...as brief as it was in the Senate...regarding military spending generally is he hates it and usually voted against it. He does demonstrate however the adeptness of a contortionist when it came time to take credit and slap himself on the back for getting bin Laden--something done thanks to years of intell work dating back to 2001 and the money spent on equipment and training by the Bush administration on Special Operations forces.

No, Mr. Obama may lecture me any time on the difficulties of growing up as a mixed race child with a mixed religious background. He may also lecture me on the best places to get good food in Chicago. He may never presume to lecture anyone on military issues.



So anyone who disagrees with you is unqualified to do so by virtue of disagreeing with you?
 
2012-10-23 12:04:13 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: How about dressage horses with frickin' bayonets attached to their heads?


Pegasus? Is that you?
 
2012-10-23 12:04:37 PM  

This text is now purple: Valiente: Bayonet charges were devised to indicate you should really give up or face a gutting. They are in the same class as using a trebuchet to fling corpses over walls.

The bayonet has one primary advantage. You never need to reload it. 

And should you find yourself in a situation where you don't have time to reload, it's generally considered advisable to bring company on your trip to hell.


I just visualized a pissed-off Gurkha with one of these:

www.coldsteel-uk.com

Good for bringing company to hell.

/what is best in life?
 
2012-10-23 12:05:04 PM  

The WindowLicker: I deployed with one. The Marine Corps has actually tried to incorporate more training with them in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (it replaced LINE training).

The Corps even developed a new more awesome bigger bayonet which looks sort of like a k-bar that took steroids. I carried mine with me in Iraq, even on the plane (but they took away my nail clippers). I think I used it to engage a 'steak' that needed turning over on the 'grill' we made out of a 55gallon drum.


That was my general recollection of bayonets as well. I had one, I trained with it, and I carried it with me because it was cool. In a serious battle, there were a million things more I'd have preferred to have over the bayonet. Artillery support, some AH-1 Cobras lurking around, working comms, a gunship, and so on and so forth. Basically if they had a "Trade in your bayonets and your unit gets a Cobra" deal, we'd have taken that deal.

/and then promptly wrecked it, but hey we'd had have an attack helicopter for all of half an hour
 
2012-10-23 12:05:15 PM  

hdhale: Obama's record...as brief as it was in the Senate...regarding military spending generally is he hates it


Obamna has had another job since his time in the Senate.

Seriously, you should read up on it. You might learn a thing or two.
 
2012-10-23 12:05:33 PM  

JesseL


SupplySideJesus: As much as I admire the Mosin, if you're relying on an archaic, fussy, 5-shot bolt gun for the ZA, you're well & truly farked.

Fussy?
You put in ammo, cycle the bolt, and pull the trigger. It fires. Cycle the bolt and pull the trigger again. It fires. Repeat until it's out of ammo.
What's fussy about a Mosin?


I'm guessing he thinks "sticky bolt" is present in all Mosins.
 
2012-10-23 12:06:01 PM  

JesseL: Langdon_777: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I was shocked to see a US Army shotgun fitted with a bayonet. Now that is CLOSE combat. My hat's off to anyone who is too close to use a shotgun and has to stab an enemy to death.

I ho[e they were solids and not buckshot, cause the later is (technically LOL) against the something or other Convention ... mmm vaguely remember it starting with 'G' ... Genesis, no that's not right ... nope it escapes me, pretty sure it must be one of those old laws that needs to be removed from the books ... like 'unnatural sex acts'.

Geneva. And no it's not.

Nor is it against the Hague Conventions (which do have something to say about projectiles that cause unnecessary suffering but don't address shotguns shooting shot). And even if it was against the Hague Conventions, the US isn't a signatory to them (we generally abide by them though). And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).


Its covered under the bit about 'weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or have INDISCRIMINATE effects' - but like I said its old law ... written back in the days when not only sucking a cock was illegal but going down on your woman. These days we are all fine with UNNECESSARY SUFFERING & even more so with INDISCRIMINATE EFFECTS ... enjoy your blow.
 
2012-10-23 12:06:17 PM  

DORMAMU: what_now: Please double down on this, Cons.

Also, can we turn one of these threads into a military pony thread?? please.

[thinklikeahorse.org image 360x244]

As you requested...

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x546]


reporting for duty

kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com

cl.jroo.me

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-23 12:08:09 PM  

hdhale: No, Mr. Obama may lecture me any time on the difficulties of growing up as a mixed race child with a mixed religious background. He may also lecture me on the best places to get good food in Chicago. He may never presume to lecture anyone on military issues.


brucedesilva.files.wordpress.com

"God, I admire you."
 
2012-10-23 12:09:17 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: Uhm, talk about rationalization of a poor point. Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t.


Dammit man, why'd you have to tell him that. Wanted to see how long the dipshiat would run with it.
 
2012-10-23 12:09:38 PM  

The Southern Dandy: JesseL: And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).

Where'd you get that silly notion?

[www.davejenkins.com image 500x271]


You're right. We are signatories to some of the Hague Conventions. We're not signatory to the Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899 though.
 
2012-10-23 12:12:22 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: JesseL

SupplySideJesus: As much as I admire the Mosin, if you're relying on an archaic, fussy, 5-shot bolt gun for the ZA, you're well & truly farked.

Fussy?
You put in ammo, cycle the bolt, and pull the trigger. It fires. Cycle the bolt and pull the trigger again. It fires. Repeat until it's out of ammo.
What's fussy about a Mosin?


I'm guessing he thinks "sticky bolt" is present in all Mosins.


It's not all Mosins. It's some Mosins and some ammo.

Even if the bolt is sticky, if it's a problem for you that's just a sign that you're not fit to survive.
 
2012-10-23 12:12:34 PM  

The WindowLicker: WMCB: I used my bayonet to probe for mines. They didn't work well, so I switched to my other large knife, which worked better.

/mine clearing is a weird job

I hope your other large knife was made out of titanium, plastic, or another non-ferrous material.

/Mine clearing IS a weird job, and it is even more weird when you use the wrong tools.


Here is the perfect kit for clearing mimes:

farm3.static.flickr.com 

Oh, wait, MINES. Scratch what I just said.
 
2012-10-23 12:12:36 PM  
All2morrowsparTs Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-23 12:00:18 PM


Gdalescrboz: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

Actually, Romney said Syria was a strategic ally of Iran because of their access to the sea; that sea being the Mediterranean, because it significantly decreases the distance traveled by oil tankers. Romneys "gaff" was not explaining it to the voting majority who couldn't pass 6th grade geography. You want to know why politicians are vague when they talk? Because simple shiat like that confuses dumb farks like you, leading you to vote for the oppoent. The last thing they want to do is be specific, the masses would be mind farked. They would feel uncomfortable not understanding what they are hearing and vote for the other guy. You are the lowest common demoninator politicians talk to. Fark. You.

Uhm, talk about rationalization of a poor point. Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t.


So if they built an oil-pipeline through Syria guess what they wouldnt have to go through? Dumbshiat
 
2012-10-23 12:12:41 PM  

ha-ha-guy: The WindowLicker: I deployed with one. The Marine Corps has actually tried to incorporate more training with them in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (it replaced LINE training).

The Corps even developed a new more awesome bigger bayonet which looks sort of like a k-bar that took steroids. I carried mine with me in Iraq, even on the plane (but they took away my nail clippers). I think I used it to engage a 'steak' that needed turning over on the 'grill' we made out of a 55gallon drum.

That was my general recollection of bayonets as well. I had one, I trained with it, and I carried it with me because it was cool. In a serious battle, there were a million things more I'd have preferred to have over the bayonet. Artillery support, some AH-1 Cobras lurking around, working comms, a gunship, and so on and so forth. Basically if they had a "Trade in your bayonets and your unit gets a Cobra" deal, we'd have taken that deal.

/and then promptly wrecked it, but hey we'd had have an attack helicopter for all of half an hour


We were all issued them but it wasn't unit SOP to carry on the Molle. Generally they wound up in the bin filled with tons of other issued equipment you never use. Some people affixed it to their vests but that was more of a joke at how antiquated their chain of command were operating. By far the coolest peice of equipment issued was the tomahawk. Obama should hold one of those up and state we don't need bayonets now that we have these.
 
2012-10-23 12:13:42 PM  

The WindowLicker: IAmRight: Yup. But '03-'07.

There are probably more training "bayonets" than there are actual bayonets. I do recall seeing them on armory inventory, though, even though no one ever used them.

/never learned to affix one to a rifle/remove one from a rifle or anything like that.

I deployed with one. The Marine Corps has actually tried to incorporate more training with them in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (it replaced LINE training).

The Corps even developed a new more awesome bigger bayonet which looks sort of like a k-bar that took steroids. I carried mine with me in Iraq, even on the plane (but they took away my nail clippers). I think I used it to engage a 'steak' that needed turning over on the 'grill' we made out of a 55gallon drum.

That said, the President was right. We need to spend our money more intelligently. Knives on the end of our rifles are not as tactically important as they once were. Functional satellite communications are key. We don't need to buy 2,000 more tanks. We are not using all the ones we have already. We need to spend the money on our tactical and strategic needs. President Obama had an ironclad point. There is no way for Romney to defend his position. (maybe if he had some more battleships...)


I dunno. I kind of disagree insofar as reducing the size of the Navy goes. Up til last time I checked, we have 48 combat brigades but if we're drawing down in Afghanistan and Iraq then it makes sense to downsize that aspect of our defense.

However, China is busy feuding with the neighbors (folks we have defense treaties with) over islands in the neighborhood, still lays claim to Taiwan and recently completed sea trials of their first blue water carrier. The very fact that:

1./ We are bracketed by two oceans
2./ Those we identify as likely enemies reside on the other sides of those oceans

...seems to suggest that having a strong and competent Navy might not be a bad idea. Yes, I know about the Air Force, cruise missiles, etc. But the same way you end up perhaps wanting a bayonet is the same reason you have a battleship or a carrier air group: sometimes the long range, surgical munitions we can launch from home don't get the job done and we need to physically sail over there and plant boot in ass to make sure. That requires ships.

Romney's kind of a turd but he's not altogether wrong on this and Obama trying to make a slick, wisecrack about horses and bayonets kind of suggests he's not addressing actual points but rather is trying to score debate points (which, being a debate, you should probably expect, I suppose).
 
2012-10-23 12:15:12 PM  

Harry Freakstorm: Never march with a bunch of airmen with bayonets. They bunch up. They move their rifle arm. You have to watch the bayonet right in front of you, bouncing and weaving like a metal cobra about to strike.


That really made me giggle
 
2012-10-23 12:15:22 PM  

FlashHarry: A) the point he was making is that what constituted appropriate military technology 100 years ago often doesn't constitute appropriate military technology today
B) he said "fewer" bayonets, not "no bayonets." so, yes, the marines still train with them. but he was right both semantically and in the broader sense of his point.
C) arguing this only highlights what an "oh, snap" moment it was and keeps it in the news cycle. a smart person would move on. but then nobody ever accused republicans of being smart.


i121.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-23 12:15:32 PM  

Gdalescrboz: So if they built an oil-pipeline through Syria guess what they wouldnt have to go through? Dumbshiat


Good point.

Also if they had a secret Mars base and nuclear inter-planetary missiles, they could rain atomic warheads down upon our heads.,
 
2012-10-23 12:16:14 PM  
Just so I understand, when Romney uses the phrase "binder full of women" the media can't understand the underlying meaning in the message and it's hilarious, but when Obama stated his position about bayonet use and the conservative media is essentially making the same case, it's an outrage?
 
2012-10-23 12:17:47 PM  

JesseL


It's not all Mosins. It's some Mosins and some ammo.

Even if the bolt is sticky, if it's a problem for you that's just a sign that you're not fit to survive.


It's not all Mosins? Really? Gosh, thanks. :-|

Learn to read: *I* didn't say it was all Mosins, I was speculating on what the guy who called Mosins "fussy" was thinking.

Typically it's the Mosins that have not had all the cosmo removed (or been cleaned in general) and/or have been used with lacquered ammo.

BTW, I think you and I were the ones who advised Dynascape on M-Ns before he bought his.
 
2012-10-23 12:19:23 PM  

Ebbelwoi: I can't see replacing the bayonet assault course with more PT. They ran us through three times and we were exhasted. Great fun though.


hell yeah, people don't realize how exhausting that can be. I think we only did it twice (it was the same day as the gas chamber, as I recall).
 
2012-10-23 12:22:27 PM  

Gdalescrboz: All2morrowsparTs Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-23 12:00:18 PM


Gdalescrboz: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

Actually, Romney said Syria was a strategic ally of Iran because of their access to the sea; that sea being the Mediterranean, because it significantly decreases the distance traveled by oil tankers. Romneys "gaff" was not explaining it to the voting majority who couldn't pass 6th grade geography. You want to know why politicians are vague when they talk? Because simple shiat like that confuses dumb farks like you, leading you to vote for the oppoent. The last thing they want to do is be specific, the masses would be mind farked. They would feel uncomfortable not understanding what they are hearing and vote for the other guy. You are the lowest common demoninator politicians talk to. Fark. You.

Uhm, talk about rationalization of a poor point. Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t.

So if they built an oil-pipeline through Syria guess what they wouldnt have to go through? Dumbshiat


If they built an oil-pipeline through Syria (which doesn't boarder Iran) to your mother's anus, would that mean they have a shorter route to come out of her vagina? Until they actually build a pipeline through Turkey/Iraq to Syria, the point is moot. They already have ocean access.

Syria is as much as their access to the ocean as Turkey in the fact that it isn't.

You're stretching to back argue into an incorrect talking point. The smart thing to do is just to drop it; you don't even have to concede that you're wrong. Just drop it and walk away. There's no need for further bloodshed. Just walk away.
 
2012-10-23 12:22:42 PM  

craig328: The WindowLicker: IAmRight: Yup. But '03-'07.

There are probably more training "bayonets" than there are actual bayonets. I do recall seeing them on armory inventory, though, even though no one ever used them.

/never learned to affix one to a rifle/remove one from a rifle or anything like that.

I deployed with one. The Marine Corps has actually tried to incorporate more training with them in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (it replaced LINE training).

The Corps even developed a new more awesome bigger bayonet which looks sort of like a k-bar that took steroids. I carried mine with me in Iraq, even on the plane (but they took away my nail clippers). I think I used it to engage a 'steak' that needed turning over on the 'grill' we made out of a 55gallon drum.

That said, the President was right. We need to spend our money more intelligently. Knives on the end of our rifles are not as tactically important as they once were. Functional satellite communications are key. We don't need to buy 2,000 more tanks. We are not using all the ones we have already. We need to spend the money on our tactical and strategic needs. President Obama had an ironclad point. There is no way for Romney to defend his position. (maybe if he had some more battleships...)

I dunno. I kind of disagree insofar as reducing the size of the Navy goes. Up til last time I checked, we have 48 combat brigades but if we're drawing down in Afghanistan and Iraq then it makes sense to downsize that aspect of our defense.

However, China is busy feuding with the neighbors (folks we have defense treaties with) over islands in the neighborhood, still lays claim to Taiwan and recently completed sea trials of their first blue water carrier. The very fact that:

1./ We are bracketed by two oceans
2./ Those we identify as likely enemies reside on the other sides of those oceans

...seems to suggest that having a strong and competent Navy might not be a bad idea. Yes, I know about the Air F ...


Pretty sure you still rock on the Mutually Assured Destruction (lets turn the planet into a green glass carpark :D
 
2012-10-23 12:23:12 PM  

Harry Freakstorm: I was in the Indiana Air National Guard and we were marching in Brazil (you just pronounced it wrong) Indiana.


Just out of curiosity, how do you pronounce it? BRAY-zel?
 
2012-10-23 12:23:28 PM  

oldfarthenry: A friend of mine was a British soldier in the Falklands war. The fog was so thick during one battle that they decided on a bayonet charge.
He still has PTSD/screaming nightmares about it to this very day.


If he only had a brilliant and cunning plan that he could use he might have been OK.


i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2012-10-23 12:23:55 PM  

Langdon_777: JesseL: Langdon_777: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I was shocked to see a US Army shotgun fitted with a bayonet. Now that is CLOSE combat. My hat's off to anyone who is too close to use a shotgun and has to stab an enemy to death.

I ho[e they were solids and not buckshot, cause the later is (technically LOL) against the something or other Convention ... mmm vaguely remember it starting with 'G' ... Genesis, no that's not right ... nope it escapes me, pretty sure it must be one of those old laws that needs to be removed from the books ... like 'unnatural sex acts'.

Geneva. And no it's not.

Nor is it against the Hague Conventions (which do have something to say about projectiles that cause unnecessary suffering but don't address shotguns shooting shot). And even if it was against the Hague Conventions, the US isn't a signatory to them (we generally abide by them though). And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).

Its covered under the bit about 'weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or have INDISCRIMINATE effects' - but like I said its old law ... written back in the days when not only sucking a cock was illegal but going down on your woman. These days we are all fine with UNNECESSARY SUFFERING & even more so with INDISCRIMINATE EFFECTS ... enjoy your blow.


I can tell you that we've been using shotguns (loaded with buckshot) in warfare for a very long time.

WWI:
media.liveauctiongroup.net

WWII:
img413.imageshack.us

Vietnam:
www.shootingillustrated.com

Iraq:
upload.wikimedia.org

The only time the question of legality was brought up it was by Germany: Link
 
2012-10-23 12:24:49 PM  

craig328: The WindowLicker: IAmRight: Yup. But '03-'07.

There are probably more training "bayonets" than there are actual bayonets. I do recall seeing them on armory inventory, though, even though no one ever used them.

/never learned to affix one to a rifle/remove one from a rifle or anything like that.

I deployed with one. The Marine Corps has actually tried to incorporate more training with them in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (it replaced LINE training).

The Corps even developed a new more awesome bigger bayonet which looks sort of like a k-bar that took steroids. I carried mine with me in Iraq, even on the plane (but they took away my nail clippers). I think I used it to engage a 'steak' that needed turning over on the 'grill' we made out of a 55gallon drum.

That said, the President was right. We need to spend our money more intelligently. Knives on the end of our rifles are not as tactically important as they once were. Functional satellite communications are key. We don't need to buy 2,000 more tanks. We are not using all the ones we have already. We need to spend the money on our tactical and strategic needs. President Obama had an ironclad point. There is no way for Romney to defend his position. (maybe if he had some more battleships...)

I dunno. I kind of disagree insofar as reducing the size of the Navy goes. Up til last time I checked, we have 48 combat brigades but if we're drawing down in Afghanistan and Iraq then it makes sense to downsize that aspect of our defense.

However, China is busy feuding with the neighbors (folks we have defense treaties with) over islands in the neighborhood, still lays claim to Taiwan and recently completed sea trials of their first blue water carrier. The very fact that:

1./ We are bracketed by two oceans
2./ Those we identify as likely enemies reside on the other sides of those oceans

...seems to suggest that having a strong and competent Navy might not be a bad idea. Yes, I know about the Air F ...


You have enough ships to get the job done already. You have twice as many carriers as the rest of the world combined, and significantly stronger naval assets than any potential enemy. Anything your navy cannot handle now would probably still be impossible even if it were 10% larger. You are acting like Obama wants to significantly reduce the size of the navy - his policies do not say that, and the size of the navy has grown under his watch. Really think you're missing the point of all of this.
 
2012-10-23 12:25:41 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: JesseL

It's not all Mosins. It's some Mosins and some ammo.

Even if the bolt is sticky, if it's a problem for you that's just a sign that you're not fit to survive.


It's not all Mosins? Really? Gosh, thanks. :-|

Learn to read: *I* didn't say it was all Mosins, I was speculating on what the guy who called Mosins "fussy" was thinking.

Typically it's the Mosins that have not had all the cosmo removed (or been cleaned in general) and/or have been used with lacquered ammo.

BTW, I think you and I were the ones who advised Dynascape on M-Ns before he bought his.


I didn't mean to offend. I was just addressing the point you had raised, not you yourself.
 
2012-10-23 12:27:07 PM  

darth_badger: oldfarthenry: A friend of mine was a British soldier in the Falklands war. The fog was so thick during one battle that they decided on a bayonet charge.
He still has PTSD/screaming nightmares about it to this very day.

If he only had a brilliant and cunning plan that he could use he might have been OK.


[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]


I didn't like that ending - it was my fav BA series :(
 
2012-10-23 12:27:20 PM  

hdhale: gerrymander: hdhale: /look it was a silly point on Obama's part...last I heard that 70% of the Earth's surface was covered in water and those carriers he talked about still need support ships...LOTS of support ships...the last thing we need is a smaller navy

The real problem for Obama's scornful 'argument' is that The US Navy has fewer ships than the Admiralty recommends it have to do its job. The current fleet is 287 ships, the recommendation is for 313. Since no one is recommending we build anything but the most technologically-capable fleet, Obama's comment was a back-handed slap by a sitting Commander-in-Chief to his own highest-level naval staff.

Obama's record...as brief as it was in the Senate...regarding military spending generally is he hates it and usually voted against it. He does demonstrate however the adeptness of a contortionist when it came time to take credit and slap himself on the back for getting bin Laden--something done thanks to years of intell work dating back to 2001 and the money spent on equipment and training by the Bush administration on Special Operations forces.

No, Mr. Obama may lecture me any time on the difficulties of growing up as a mixed race child with a mixed religious background. He may also lecture me on the best places to get good food in Chicago. He may never presume to lecture anyone on military issues.


You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. The CIA shut down the unit hunting OBL in 2007. Obama re-opened it when he took office. but for that unit we would not have found and therefore killed OBL. the end.
 
2012-10-23 12:31:16 PM  

Gdalescrboz: All2morrowsparTs Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-23 12:00:18 PM


So if they built an oil-pipeline through Syria guess what they wouldnt have to go through? Dumbshiat


Which would take how many years, through three countries-two of which probably can't import that amount of steel due to sanctions, one of which is an active war zone, and none of which has the local talent to actually design and build a few hundred mile-long pipeline and the pumping stations it would require?

What is your point again?
 
2012-10-23 12:31:40 PM  

JesseL: Langdon_777: JesseL: Langdon_777: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I was shocked to see a US Army shotgun fitted with a bayonet. Now that is CLOSE combat. My hat's off to anyone who is too close to use a shotgun and has to stab an enemy to death.

I ho[e they were solids and not buckshot, cause the later is (technically LOL) against the something or other Convention ... mmm vaguely remember it starting with 'G' ... Genesis, no that's not right ... nope it escapes me, pretty sure it must be one of those old laws that needs to be removed from the books ... like 'unnatural sex acts'.

Geneva. And no it's not.

Nor is it against the Hague Conventions (which do have something to say about projectiles that cause unnecessary suffering but don't address shotguns shooting shot). And even if it was against the Hague Conventions, the US isn't a signatory to them (we generally abide by them though). And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).

Its covered under the bit about 'weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or have INDISCRIMINATE effects' - but like I said its old law ... written back in the days when not only sucking a cock was illegal but going down on your woman. These days we are all fine with UNNECESSARY SUFFERING & even more so with INDISCRIMINATE EFFECTS ... enjoy your blow.

I can tell you that we've been using shotguns (loaded with buckshot) in warfare for a very long time.

WWI:
[media.liveauctiongroup.net image 850x191]

WWII:
[img413.imageshack.us image 850x300]

Vietnam:
[www.shootingillustrated.com image 640x410]

Iraq:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 660x599]

The only time the question of legality was brought up it was by Germany: Link


Back in the bad ole days (meaning when the GC was actually respected) they were almost purely a special forces weapon (though lets go further back ... imagine if one of the cowboys in a "I shall see you at noon in the main street" event rocked up with a shotgun instead of a pistol....hero or wanker?
 
2012-10-23 12:32:01 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I was shocked to see a US Army shotgun fitted with a bayonet. Now that is CLOSE combat. My hat's off to anyone who is too close to use a shotgun and has to stab an enemy to death.


Stab, THEN shoot.

Also helpful for door breaching.
 
2012-10-23 12:32:16 PM  
realityblog.org
 
2012-10-23 12:34:52 PM  

JesseL


I didn't mean to offend. I was just addressing the point you had raised, not you yourself.


No offense taken. I thought you had misinterpreted what I wrote, but probably should have responded without the sarcasm. :-)
 
2012-10-23 12:35:08 PM  

The Southern Dandy: JesseL: And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).

Where'd you get that silly notion?


CITATION PROVIDED:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power. "


Signatories of the Hague Convention include the United States of America. Afghanistan is not a signatory, so even if you consider the Taliban to be the lawful controlling power of that country unjustly in exile due to the depredations of NATO, it's perfectly legal to shoot a Taliban combatant with a hollowpoint.

Also, non-state-actors are not considered to be signatory either, so there's no problem shooting a Somali pirate for two reasons: 1) Somalia is not a signatory and 2) even if it was, Somalia would have to claim the pirate was acting under the command of the government of Somalia.
 
2012-10-23 12:37:43 PM  

sammyk: Is this really a talking point? That's just sad. So long America, we hardly knew ya.


Yes, it's a talking point. No, it's not stupid. It was a devastating response to Romney's inane attack. Romney has repeatedly criticized Obama's military credentials with the ridiculous claim that our navy has fewer ships now than it did 100 years ago.

Obama didn't respond in a wonkish way, but with an OH SNAP! comeback. The bayonets and horses line is important because it's memorable, yet tells a difficult truth that Romney cannot explain without admitting to be a liar. It shines a spotlight on the lie of Romney's criticism. To those who are still on the fence, it may make them question the validity of Romney's other criticisms.

It's devastating and memorable lines like this that win elections.
 
2012-10-23 12:38:09 PM  

Gdalescrboz: All2morrowsparTs

Uhm, talk about rationalization of a poor point. Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t.

So if they built an oil-pipeline through Syria guess what they wouldnt have to go through? Dumbshiat



Um, Iran already has pipelnie access to the Mediterranean through Turkey.
 
2012-10-23 12:38:37 PM  

RandomRandom: It's devastating and memorable lines like this that win elections.


We hope
 
2012-10-23 12:39:23 PM  

plausdeny: The Southern Dandy: JesseL: And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).

Where'd you get that silly notion?

CITATION PROVIDED:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power. "

Signatories of the Hague Convention include the United States of America. Afghanistan is not a signatory, so even if you consider the Taliban to be the lawful controlling power of that country unjustly in exile due to the depredations of NATO, it's perfectly legal to shoot a Taliban combatant with a hollowpoint.

Also, non-state-actors are not considered to be signatory either, so there's no problem shooting a Somali pirate for two reasons: 1) Somalia is not a signatory and 2) even if it was, Somalia would have to claim the pirate was acting under the command of the government of Somalia.


plausdeny: The Southern Dandy: JesseL: And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).

Where'd you get that silly notion?

CITATION PROVIDED:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power. "

Signatories of the Hague Convention include the United States of America. Afghanistan is not a signatory, so even if you consider the Taliban to be the lawful controlling power of that country unjustly in exile due to the depredations of NATO, it's perfectly legal to shoot a Taliban combatant with a hollowpoint.

Also, non-state-actors are not considered to be signatory either, so there's no problem shooting a Somali pirate for two reasons: 1) Somalia is not a signatory and 2) even if it was, Somalia would have to claim the pirate was acting under the command of the government of Somalia.


I so wish I could write laws that only benefit me.

Wouldn't that be great.

It's only rape if I do it to a 'signatory', its only murder if I do it to a 'signatory' - and we wonder why the rest of the world is going to get to watch another USoA civil war, its only rape/murder if I do it to a democrat/republican (depending on who is in charge.)
 
2012-10-23 12:40:59 PM  
Arkanaut
Harry Freakstorm: I was in the Indiana Air National Guard and we were marching in Brazil (you just pronounced it wrong) Indiana.

Just out of curiosity, how do you pronounce it? BRAY-zel?


Yep. "Bray-zill" or "Braay-zeeull" with a lot of accent on the first half. There has to be an effort put forth when you say it. Saying it plainly like the country will get you mocked. "You aint from 'round here, are yew?"
 
2012-10-23 12:41:33 PM  

JesseL: SupplySideJesus: As much as I admire the Mosin, if you're relying on an archaic, fussy, 5-shot bolt gun for the ZA, you're well & truly farked.

Fussy?
You put in ammo, cycle the bolt, and pull the trigger. It fires. Cycle the bolt and pull the trigger again. It fires. Repeat until it's out of ammo.
What's fussy about a Mosin?


"Fussy" as in "cycles as if built by scared Russians in an awful hurry." At least mine does... and yes, it's clean. And about the worst zombie gun in the safe unless I were clubbing them over the head with it.
 
2012-10-23 12:42:20 PM  

Langdon_777: Back in the bad ole days (meaning when the GC was actually respected) they were almost purely a special forces weapon (though lets go further back ... imagine if one of the cowboys in a "I shall see you at noon in the main street" event rocked up with a shotgun instead of a pistol....hero or wanker?


The kind of event that almost never actually happened in real life? Most lawmen from that era did use a shotgun (or other long gun) whenever possible. It's the smart thing to do.

www.imfdb.org
 
2012-10-23 12:43:59 PM  

maddermaxx: You have enough ships to get the job done already. You have twice as many carriers as the rest of the world combined, and significantly stronger naval assets than any potential enemy. Anything your navy cannot handle now would probably still be impossible even if it were 10% larger. You are acting like Obama wants to significantly reduce the size of the navy - his policies do not say that, and the size of the navy has grown under his watch. Really think you're missing the point of all of this.


Hm. Nope, I think you might have missed my point.

Romney states what is, presumably, a fact. Obama has a choice: counter with facts if Romney is in error or try and deliver a scornful zinger (which tends to mean Romney's posit was not in error but it still might have been). Obama did the latter.

The point is that Romney pointed out that "the Navy said they need 313 ships to carry out their mission...they're now down to 285...we're headed down to the low 200's if we go through a sequestration" and preceded that by saying "our Navy is smaller now than anytime since 1917". Those appear to be facts....so when presented with such Obama takes a condescending tack via "I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works...we have fewer ships than we did in 1916; well governor we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed".

When I see an exchange like that my first reaction is "so he's deciding to suggest that Romney is out of touch and perhaps stupid" but the president kind of disregards the point the governor made: it was THE NAVY that said they need 313 ships to carry out their mission. Presumably, they (the Navy) HAS spent enough time (and hopefully more time than the president) looking at how our military works and has the requisite expertise to form a cogent opinion (again, hopefully more expertise and informed experience than the president) and it's THEIR opinion that they need those ships.

Romney brought up the point that the force levels are lower than optimal and appear to be on track to sink even further...and rather than address that effectively, the president kind of goes off on a suggestion of "yer stoopid, they're much more effective than you seem to be aware of" and so on...totally ignoring that the force level opinions he's deriding are the very people who'd know best.

That was my point. If the Navy has the task to do and they say they need X amount of resources to do it properly, who has superior expertise to naysay them? I'll suggest it's not the president or you or even me. It was a valid point and Obama sidestepped it in favor of crafting a one liner zinger like it was some attempt to get on the politics version of Sportscenter later that night.
 
2012-10-23 12:45:02 PM  

Gdalescrboz: So if they built an oil-pipeline through Syria guess what they wouldnt have to go through? Dumbshiat


Iraq and/or Turkey first?
 
2012-10-23 12:49:14 PM  

JesseL: Langdon_777: Back in the bad ole days (meaning when the GC was actually respected) they were almost purely a special forces weapon (though lets go further back ... imagine if one of the cowboys in a "I shall see you at noon in the main street" event rocked up with a shotgun instead of a pistol....hero or wanker?

The kind of event that almost never actually happened in real life? Most lawmen from that era did use a shotgun (or other long gun) whenever possible. It's the smart thing to do.

[www.imfdb.org image 600x248]


PS - it would be my preferred weapon too (though a knife across the neck whilst sleeping, a road side bomb or a drone attack seem even more me > you.)

In a real war you do not play by the rules - but there have been and cannot be any 'real wars' since WE GOT THE BOMB, MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION, (get with the times.)

Story - I get to laugh at the staunch dudes you rock up to my pub to watch UFC, not only do I laugh at the homo erotica of two half naked men grappling with each other, but I like to point out that since we invented the pistol all your staunchness is dross.
 
2012-10-23 12:50:46 PM  

craig328: maddermaxx: You have enough ships to get the job done already. You have twice as many carriers as the rest of the world combined, and significantly stronger naval assets than any potential enemy. Anything your navy cannot handle now would probably still be impossible even if it were 10% larger. You are acting like Obama wants to significantly reduce the size of the navy - his policies do not say that, and the size of the navy has grown under his watch. Really think you're missing the point of all of this.

Hm. Nope, I think you might have missed my point.

Romney states what is, presumably, a fact. Obama has a choice: counter with facts if Romney is in error or try and deliver a scornful zinger (which tends to mean Romney's posit was not in error but it still might have been). Obama did the latter.

The point is that Romney pointed out that "the Navy said they need 313 ships to carry out their mission...they're now down to 285...we're headed down to the low 200's if we go through a sequestration" and preceded that by saying "our Navy is smaller now than anytime since 1917". Those appear to be facts....so when presented with such Obama takes a condescending tack via "I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works...we have fewer ships than we did in 1916; well governor we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed".

When I see an exchange like that my first reaction is "so he's deciding to suggest that Romney is out of touch and perhaps stupid" but the president kind of disregards the point the governor made: it was THE NAVY that said they need 313 ships to carry out their mission. Presumably, they (the Navy) HAS spent enough time (and hopefully more time than the president) looking at how our military works and has the requisite expertise to form a cogent opinion (again, hopefully more expertise and informed experience than the president) and it's THEIR opinion that they need those sh ...


But Obama got in a zinger so according to the Democrats, he won. As with everything else with Obama, it's all about the appearance and not the substance.
 
2012-10-23 12:51:07 PM  

Gwyrddu: I've never gotten a bayonet outside of basic training, even when I deployed to Kosovo, nor did anyone else in my scout troop. It's pretty safe to say that while some military personnel might get them mostly out of custom, realistically there is no way there are that many bayonets out there compared to WWI.


Hell, we never used bayonets in Basic Training.

We were supposed to, one day was allotted for training with them. Then because of severe weather we weren't able to train on the bayonet course. It's one of the things on the curriculum that can be scrapped if something else needs to be made up for, or weather gets in the way, or any one of a zillion things goes wrong.

They later gave us a 5 minute crash course in use of bayonets, with our rifles, without bayonets actually attached (or issued). That was because to run a pugil stick tournament you are supposed to do it after bayonet training. Instead of actually practicing with bayonets and running the bayonet course, we got a brief lesson in it, demonstrated the moves (without actual bayonets) a couple of times, then handed pugil sticks and safety pads and told to start beating each other up.

Nobody I know has ever used a bayonet, or even been issued one, when deploying overseas.

I'm sure somebody in the US military still uses them outside of Basic, but I dunno who.
 
2012-10-23 12:51:52 PM  

Langdon_777: JesseL: Langdon_777: Back in the bad ole days (meaning when the GC was actually respected) they were almost purely a special forces weapon (though lets go further back ... imagine if one of the cowboys in a "I shall see you at noon in the main street" event rocked up with a shotgun instead of a pistol....hero or wanker?

The kind of event that almost never actually happened in real life? Most lawmen from that era did use a shotgun (or other long gun) whenever possible. It's the smart thing to do.

[www.imfdb.org image 600x248]

PS - it would be my preferred weapon too (though a knife across the neck whilst sleeping, a road side bomb or a drone attack seem even more me > you.)

In a real war you do not play by the rules - but there have been and cannot be any 'real wars' since WE GOT THE BOMB, MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION, (get with the times.)

Story - I get to laugh at the staunch dudes you rock up to my pub to watch UFC, not only do I laugh at the homo erotica of two half naked men grappling with each other, but I like to point out that since we invented the pistol all your staunchness is dross.


Yes I missed a 'not' somewhere in there :p
 
2012-10-23 12:55:29 PM  

craig328: When I see an exchange like that my first reaction is "so he's deciding to suggest that Romney is out of touch and perhaps stupid" but the president kind of disregards the point the governor made: it was THE NAVY that said they need 313 ships to carry out their mission. Presumably, they (the Navy) HAS spent enough time (and hopefully more time than the president) looking at how our military works and has the requisite expertise to form a cogent opinion (again, hopefully more expertise and informed experience than the president) and it's THEIR opinion that they need those ships.


Okay, time to learn something about military budget requests.

There is the number they'll ask for if money is unlimited. Their dream request. Everything and a pony too.

Then there's what they actually expect to get, what is realistic and what they know they can do their job with.

That pie-in-the-sky number may be 313, but they know they can do it with a lot less, and after budget talks between the SECNAV and the JCS and the POTUS, they'll settle on a number that can do the job, but also fit into the budget reality. That's what President Obama was saying, that they are getting what they need, after negotiations and discussion with the top brass to see what was really needed and what was more of a wish list.

Yeah, the Navy might not be getting their dreams, but they are getting everything they need to do the job.
 
2012-10-23 12:55:40 PM  

sammyk: Is this really a talking point? That's just sad. So long America, we hardly knew ya.


Is it "Big Bird" sad or "binders" sad?

I think it's hilarious -- I'm talking nuclear-farking-Iran hilarious.
 
2012-10-23 12:58:12 PM  

Silverstaff: craig328: When I see an exchange like that my first reaction is "so he's deciding to suggest that Romney is out of touch and perhaps stupid" but the president kind of disregards the point the governor made: it was THE NAVY that said they need 313 ships to carry out their mission. Presumably, they (the Navy) HAS spent enough time (and hopefully more time than the president) looking at how our military works and has the requisite expertise to form a cogent opinion (again, hopefully more expertise and informed experience than the president) and it's THEIR opinion that they need those ships.

Okay, time to learn something about military budget requests.

There is the number they'll ask for if money is unlimited. Their dream request. Everything and a pony too.

Then there's what they actually expect to get, what is realistic and what they know they can do their job with.

That pie-in-the-sky number may be 313, but they know they can do it with a lot less, and after budget talks between the SECNAV and the JCS and the POTUS, they'll settle on a number that can do the job, but also fit into the budget reality. That's what President Obama was saying, that they are getting what they need, after negotiations and discussion with the top brass to see what was really needed and what was more of a wish list.

Yeah, the Navy might not be getting their dreams, but they are getting everything they need to do the job.


If I was a US citizen I would vote for the Boot Guy - at least we all get a pony.
 
2012-10-23 01:02:37 PM  

Langdon_777: darth_badger: oldfarthenry: A friend of mine was a British soldier in the Falklands war. The fog was so thick during one battle that they decided on a bayonet charge.
He still has PTSD/screaming nightmares about it to this very day.

If he only had a brilliant and cunning plan that he could use he might have been OK.


[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]

I didn't like that ending - it was my fav BA series :(


Same here. Very moving ending.
 
2012-10-23 01:06:17 PM  

darth_badger: Langdon_777: darth_badger: oldfarthenry: A friend of mine was a British soldier in the Falklands war. The fog was so thick during one battle that they decided on a bayonet charge.
He still has PTSD/screaming nightmares about it to this very day.

If he only had a brilliant and cunning plan that he could use he might have been OK.


[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]

I didn't like that ending - it was my fav BA series :(

Same here. Very moving ending.


If only the Brigadier had joined them - the next 100 (almost) years we have had to live since might have been different ;) :D
 
2012-10-23 01:09:00 PM  
My wife bought me a bayonet for my Bushmaster XM-15 (AR-15 clone). I can see why the military doesn't use them much. Sure, it's a nice piece of equip to have, but the extra weight up front throws off my aim. I can see using it if the ammo supply was low, but for little else.

Of couse, poking people with it seems like a good idea.
 
2012-10-23 01:11:18 PM  
EVERYONE knows you have to scupper your wood-hulled crap when you get these bad-boys,


i2.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-23 01:11:50 PM  

sammyk: Is this really a talking point? That's just sad. So long America, we hardly knew ya.


No more so than "Binders", but Farkers seemed okay with that.
 
2012-10-23 01:19:59 PM  
Bayonets.

Reminds me of Bayonet Day in basic, so long ago, when the burning question was asked...

"If you bayonet someone, and they stick on the end of your rifle, can you shake the body loose by firing the rifle?"

to which was replied

"Son, if you've got rounds left, why in the name of God were you bayoneting someone?"
 
2012-10-23 01:25:21 PM  

RandomRandom: sammyk: Is this really a talking point? That's just sad. So long America, we hardly knew ya.

Yes, it's a talking point. No, it's not stupid. It was a devastating response to Romney's inane attack. Romney has repeatedly criticized Obama's military credentials with the ridiculous claim that our navy has fewer ships now than it did 100 years ago.

Obama didn't respond in a wonkish way, but with an OH SNAP! comeback. The bayonets and horses line is important because it's memorable, yet tells a difficult truth that Romney cannot explain without admitting to be a liar. It shines a spotlight on the lie of Romney's criticism. To those who are still on the fence, it may make them question the validity of Romney's other criticisms.

It's devastating and memorable lines like this that win elections.


I don't think it's that devastating. The right wing blogosphere is treating it like an Obama gaffe. I don't understand how its possible to do the mental gymnastics required to come to that conclusion but it seems to be happening.
Link
Link
Link
herr derr Obama doesn't know the military still uses bayonets derp derp

I repeat myself
That's just sad. So long America, we hardly knew ya.
 
2012-10-23 01:26:36 PM  

hdhale: No, Mr. Obama may lecture me any time on the difficulties of growing up as a mixed race child with a mixed religious background.


And there we have it.
 
2012-10-23 01:29:36 PM  

craig328: and they say they need X amount of resources to do it properly


But they didn't.
 
2012-10-23 01:29:43 PM  

erewhon: Bayonets.

Reminds me of Bayonet Day in basic, so long ago, when the burning question was asked...

"If you bayonet someone, and they stick on the end of your rifle, can you shake the body loose by firing the rifle?"

to which was replied

"Son, if you've got rounds left, why in the name of God were you bayoneting someone?"


It's why we have made bayonets much shorter over the years - WWI pull trigger to get the corpse off, too often resulted in lose bayonet - with a shorter bayonet that isn't such a problem.

And you were obviously in a BIG army hence your Sgt's response, in a small/rebel one every bullet counts! Don't use a round when a knife will do.
 
2012-10-23 01:31:15 PM  

vento: But Obama got in a zinger so according to the Democrats, he won. As with everything else with Obama, it's all about the appearance and not the substance.


No, there was real substance there. Sure it was a great zinger, but it's not the zinger that will hurt Romney, it's the fact that the zinger points out just how completely stupid Romney's criticism was. Romney said the number of ships we had 100 years ago has a direct coloration to the power of our navy today.

Romney was completely wrong and Obama proved it in a way a 2nd grader could understand. Quantity isn't power. Power is power.

Obama not only nailed Romney for that idiotic comparison, but he did it in a way that will be memorable, a way that will continue to make Romney look stupid for a while. Of course Republicans are trying to downplay this change the topic, it's doing real damage.
 
2012-10-23 01:33:59 PM  

Gdalescrboz: All2morrowsparTs Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-23 12:00:18 PM


Gdalescrboz: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

Actually, Romney said Syria was a strategic ally of Iran because of their access to the sea; that sea being the Mediterranean, because it significantly decreases the distance traveled by oil tankers. Romneys "gaff" was not explaining it to the voting majority who couldn't pass 6th grade geography. You want to know why politicians are vague when they talk? Because simple shiat like that confuses dumb farks like you, leading you to vote for the oppoent. The last thing they want to do is be specific, the masses would be mind farked. They would feel uncomfortable not understanding what they are hearing and vote for the other guy. You are the lowest common demoninator politicians talk to. Fark. You.

Uhm, talk about rationalization of a poor point. Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t.

So if they built an oil-pipeline through Syria guess what they wouldnt have to go through? Dumbshiat


Gdalescrboz: All2morrowsparTs Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-23 12:00:18 PM


Gdalescrboz: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

Actually, Romney said Syria was a strategic ally of Iran because of their access to the sea; that sea being the Mediterranean, because it significantly decreases the distance traveled by oil tankers. Romneys "gaff" was not explaining it to the voting majority who couldn't pass 6th grade geography. You want to know why politicians are vague when they talk? Because simple shiat like that confuses dumb farks like you, leading you to vote for the oppoent. The last thing they want to do is be specific, the masses would be mind farked. They would feel uncomfortable not understanding what they are hearing and vote for the other guy. You are the lowest common demoninator politicians talk to. Fark. You.

Uhm, talk about rationalization of a poor point. Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t.

So if they built an oil-pipeline through Syria guess what they wouldnt have to go through? Dumbshiat


Wouldn't they have to go through defacto Kurdistan to get there? You're still not making any sense.
 
2012-10-23 01:40:46 PM  
So Romney thinks warships are as outdated as bayonets and horses?

Someone outta let the NAVY know.
 
2012-10-23 01:47:20 PM  
Last night, our president claimed that the U.S. has ships that have aircraft on them and also ships that can go underwater.

At first, I was skeptical and thought "oh yeah, maybe helicopters or something", and "oh yeah, ships have been going underwater for thousands of years-that is called 'sinking'".

But, I checked and we actually have very large ships that JETS and PLANES can land on, AND TAKE OFF AGAIN!
Info on ships that carry jets and planes!
We also have ships that can submerge in a controlled fashion, travel under water for many thousands of leagues and actually come to the surface of the ocean again:
Info on boats that can submerge and come back up again!

The above links are not to some crackpot site, or even Wikipedia, but to our own U.S. Navy's website. So, if there is a cover up in place to help support the president's wild claims last night, then the cover-up is pretty wide ranging.
 
2012-10-23 01:51:09 PM  

rfenster: Last night, our president claimed that the U.S. has ships that have aircraft on them and also ships that can go underwater.

At first, I was skeptical and thought "oh yeah, maybe helicopters or something", and "oh yeah, ships have been going underwater for thousands of years-that is called 'sinking'".

But, I checked and we actually have very large ships that JETS and PLANES can land on, AND TAKE OFF AGAIN!
Info on ships that carry jets and planes!
We also have ships that can submerge in a controlled fashion, travel under water for many thousands of leagues and actually come to the surface of the ocean again:
Info on boats that can submerge and come back up again!

The above links are not to some crackpot site, or even Wikipedia, but to our own U.S. Navy's website. So, if there is a cover up in place to help support the president's wild claims last night, then the cover-up is pretty wide ranging.


Not bad, but a pocket ninja not you are
 
2012-10-23 01:55:07 PM  

sammyk: herr derr Obama doesn't know the military still uses bayonets derp derp


Why do you think they're pushing back so hard, and with such weak sauce?

They're pushing back because the substance behind the zinger has them scared. As for the weak sauce response, they don't have anything other than to completely misrepresent Obama's "less bayonets" comment as "no bayonets". If they address the substance of the zinger, it would prove that Romney was either out of touch, stupid, or making a completely political criticism.
 
2012-10-23 01:57:07 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Fark. You can buy a bayonet lug kit for your Remington 870 on eBay.


You can get lugs for the Mossberg 590A1 as well. Considering that a combat shotgun is a close-quarters weapon with limited ammunition capacity, putting a bayonet on actually makes sense. At least more sense than putting one on a tactical carbine.
 
2012-10-23 01:59:34 PM  
How do you bayonet that stupid fscking "social media" icon bar floating over the damned article?
 
2012-10-23 02:01:14 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: At Thanksgiving dinner my dad still tells us all to "fix bayonets." So yeah they're good for something.


Apparently not, since you all keep breaking them.
 
2012-10-23 02:02:56 PM  

what_now: Please double down on this, Cons.

Also, can we turn one of these threads into a military pony thread?? please.


kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com 

/wat?
 
2012-10-23 02:03:57 PM  

vento: But Obama got in a zinger so according to the Democrats, he won. As with everything else with Obama, it's all about the appearance and not the substance.


Romney's substance: We have less ships now than we had in 1917 and that's shameful. Our navy is not the fighting force it was back then.

Obama's substance: You are aware that our Navy can do a lot more with a lot less these days, right? While the number of our ships is less, the power that our ships have now is much greater, and in relation to the rest of the world's navies, we have no equal. No one even comes close.

There's your farking "substance."
 
2012-10-23 02:10:53 PM  

imtheonlylp: While at a Buffalo Wild Wings (the only time I ever went), there was a table full of soldiers watching the Army/Navy game chanting FIXED BAYONETS the entire time, making for a rather dismal environment, even though it was to be expected at BWW.


Me and my wife go to Buffalo Wild Wings probably 6 or 7 times a year. We have a horrible time and the food is bad. And the food feels bad.
 
2012-10-23 02:12:16 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: gerrymander: hdhale: /look it was a silly point on Obama's part...last I heard that 70% of the Earth's surface was covered in water and those carriers he talked about still need support ships...LOTS of support ships...the last thing we need is a smaller navy

The real problem for Obama's scornful 'argument' is that The US Navy has fewer ships than the Admiralty recommends it have to do its job. The current fleet is 287 ships, the recommendation is for 313. Since no one is recommending we build anything but the most technologically-capable fleet, Obama's comment was a back-handed slap by a sitting Commander-in-Chief to his own highest-level naval staff.

We don't use that term here in the States. It's the Secretary of the Navy.

BTW: Obama doesn't give out permission slips for the Navy to build things, Congress does. Also the Navy is larger by ship count than in 2007..... It was a stupid statement by Romney using a hundred year old stat as the basis for more ships. He was wrong and Obama pointed out how wrong he was.


True. Thought that was a good one on Obama's part and I'm totally against him. Romney should have counter by pointing out that by invoking Nuclear subs and aircraft carriers Obama's only showing himself to be 25 years behind. With out a ton of escort and support a carrier is just a 10 Billion dollar bulls-eye. Near miss with a nuke will work and protecting a carrier in the Persian gulf from even a bunch of small boats and planes could get interesting. Nuclear subs won't help much these days either with little to no enemy navy to fight. You don't need a torpedo to sink a lund with a 50 cal mount.
 
2012-10-23 02:16:03 PM  

way south: So Romney thinks warships are as outdated as bayonets and horses?

Someone outta let the NAVY know.


No Obama thinks that.
 
2012-10-23 02:16:33 PM  

JesseL: M44? Love mine.


I once had a farking cherry M44. The only gun I regret selling, and I really wish I had found something else to get rid of.
 
2012-10-23 02:16:58 PM  
CSB

One of My fondest memories from My time with the 82nd was Division Review. Of course it was done at sling arms, with bayonet attached, with the sling fed through your web gear belt. The real fun was when someone around you passed out, the sling/web gear connection kept the weapon/bayonet firmly attached to the now passed out body and as he went down you could bet someone was gonna get bayoneted. So you learned very quickly to let "joe" go where he wanted, you just grabbed the bayonet to keep it safe. Strangely this was a source for great amusement for us paratroopers.

/CSB
 
2012-10-23 02:20:29 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: At Thanksgiving dinner my dad still tells us all to "fix bayonets." So yeah they're good for something.


You know, if your father said "Pass the kraut" I could understand. But if he said "Pass the nip" I'd be outta there in a second.
 
2012-10-23 02:23:02 PM  
If some one wanted to they could play -- OMG Obama is Hitler !!!

Just before World War II, during the depression , Poland had to make a choice modernize it's army with reduced strength ( Obama's way ) or maintain it's numbers with out dated technology I.e.horse cavalry ( The GOP's way ) .

Poland chose the GOP route so when the German blitzkrieg rolled across Poland borders , Polish Lancers on horse back ( a Lance is a stick with a pointy end ) faced off against German panzer tanks .

Now the the GOP is sort of right as was Poland at the time -- there were more Lancers on horseback then German tanks .
 
2012-10-23 02:24:37 PM  

Silverstaff: craig328: When I see an exchange like that my first reaction is "so he's deciding to suggest that Romney is out of touch and perhaps stupid" but the president kind of disregards the point the governor made: it was THE NAVY that said they need 313 ships to carry out their mission. Presumably, they (the Navy) HAS spent enough time (and hopefully more time than the president) looking at how our military works and has the requisite expertise to form a cogent opinion (again, hopefully more expertise and informed experience than the president) and it's THEIR opinion that they need those ships.

Okay, time to learn something about military budget requests.

There is the number they'll ask for if money is unlimited. Their dream request. Everything and a pony too.

Then there's what they actually expect to get, what is realistic and what they know they can do their job with.

That pie-in-the-sky number may be 313, but they know they can do it with a lot less, and after budget talks between the SECNAV and the JCS and the POTUS, they'll settle on a number that can do the job, but also fit into the budget reality. That's what President Obama was saying, that they are getting what they need, after negotiations and discussion with the top brass to see what was really needed and what was more of a wish list.

Yeah, the Navy might not be getting their dreams, but they are getting everything they need to do the job.


Interesting. Thanks for stating the baldly obvious (how budgets work vs requests). Let me respond by saying your paraphrase is probably accurate but that's NOT was the president was saying last night. If it was then he would have foregone the snark reply and stated the case. He didn't.

Let me add another point of consideration. If we take Romney's assertions at face value (which the president didn't dispute) then we're down in terms of deployable naval assets and poised to sink much further. Consider the environment that Navy works in today compared to just 20 years ago. Back then the Navy was larger with more vessels and personnel. But the enemy we faced was the Soviet Union and the primary deterrent we used was the threat of nuclear weapons. You would think (especially considering the Soviet Union didn't present a large surface fleet threat that ever strayed all that far from their coasts) that our force necessity at the time was adequate (it turned out to be) but the number of naval vessels wasn't our primary "stick". Today, we face an emerging China, piracy along the western Indian Ocean and southwest Pacific, North Korea, Iran and many other similar smaller, non-national threats for which a nuclear threat isn't warranted. Indeed, the boat the Navy is most proud of these days is their new littoral craft, designed to function in coastal waters.

With the end of the Cold War the number of potential enemies has increased and our formerly sure response (nuclear annihilation) is no longer appropriate. The Navy can no longer rely upon relatively few assets wielding the mighty atom hammer...because we can't realistically use that hammer. And the numbers of craft we have today is even less than the numbers we had then.

I am well familiar with the budgetary dance but the fact exists that the Navy faces a new threat today that it's formerly monolithic fleet is likely ill-equipped to address. They say they need those boats to ensure the job is done right. Perhaps they are being somewhat exaggerating in their assessment of their need (although I fail to see anyone better qualified to render an opinion) but the tug of war they'll have over funding simply means rather than meeting 100% of their mission goals, with a reduced force they can meet 80% or so (as a for instance) and politicians are okay with that. That's the way these things have always been done. However, while debating back and forth about needs, moving forward with sequestration (cutting down existing forces) seems like a valid point to bring up that deserved an actual response and not a sound bite zinger.

But that may just be me.
 
2012-10-23 02:32:14 PM  

Prince George: way south: So Romney thinks warships are as outdated as bayonets and horses?

Someone outta let the NAVY know.

No Obama thinks that.


The original statement is about as true as yours. It has to take some pretty willful misunderstanding to take what you said away from Obama's statement.
 
2012-10-23 02:33:32 PM  

Valiente: This text is now purple: Valiente: Bayonet charges were devised to indicate you should really give up or face a gutting. They are in the same class as using a trebuchet to fling corpses over walls.

The bayonet has one primary advantage. You never need to reload it. 

And should you find yourself in a situation where you don't have time to reload, it's generally considered advisable to bring company on your trip to hell.

I just visualized a pissed-off Gurkha with one of these:

[www.coldsteel-uk.com image 320x320]

Good for bringing company to hell.

/what is best in life?


Ghorkahli HAI!

1 Ghurka and his knife vs. 40 heavily armed bandits
 
2012-10-23 02:34:52 PM  

craig328: Silverstaff: craig328: When I see an exchange like that my first reaction is "so he's deciding to suggest that Romney is out of touch and perhaps stupid" but the president kind of disregards the point the governor made: it was THE NAVY that said they need 313 ships to carry out their mission. Presumably, they (the Navy) HAS spent enough time (and hopefully more time than the president) looking at how our military works and has the requisite expertise to form a cogent opinion (again, hopefully more expertise and informed experience than the president) and it's THEIR opinion that they need those ships.

Okay, time to learn something about military budget requests.

There is the number they'll ask for if money is unlimited. Their dream request. Everything and a pony too.

Then there's what they actually expect to get, what is realistic and what they know they can do their job with.

That pie-in-the-sky number may be 313, but they know they can do it with a lot less, and after budget talks between the SECNAV and the JCS and the POTUS, they'll settle on a number that can do the job, but also fit into the budget reality. That's what President Obama was saying, that they are getting what they need, after negotiations and discussion with the top brass to see what was really needed and what was more of a wish list.

Yeah, the Navy might not be getting their dreams, but they are getting everything they need to do the job.

Interesting. Thanks for stating the baldly obvious (how budgets work vs requests). Let me respond by saying your paraphrase is probably accurate but that's NOT was the president was saying last night. If it was then he would have foregone the snark reply and stated the case. He didn't.

Let me add another point of consideration. If we take Romney's assertions at face value (which the president didn't dispute) then we're down in terms of deployable naval assets and poised to sink much further. Consider the environment that Navy works in today compar ...


Psst - though I agree mostly, I would like to point out your guys shouldn't have anything to do with the Indian Ocean (you are on the other side of the world) - cept for that navel base named Diego Garcia. Which many peeps on the western side of said ocean consider to be a VERY REAL AND PERMANENT THREAT TO THEIR SOVEREIGNTY (to say nothing about the ships there with totally reprehensible prisons on them!!! Hehe this coming from an Aussie.)
 
2012-10-23 02:38:45 PM  

Magic_Button: If some one wanted to they could play -- OMG Obama is Hitler !!!

Just before World War II, during the depression , Poland had to make a choice modernize it's army with reduced strength ( Obama's way ) or maintain it's numbers with out dated technology I.e.horse cavalry ( The GOP's way ) .

Poland chose the GOP route so when the German blitzkrieg rolled across Poland borders , Polish Lancers on horse back ( a Lance is a stick with a pointy end ) faced off against German panzer tanks .

Now the the GOP is sort of right as was Poland at the time -- there were more Lancers on horseback then German tanks .


First Silesian Uprising (1919)-Polish rebels in the German region of Silesia rebelled, seeking to join with Poland.

Second Silesian Uprising (1920)-Polish rebels in the German region of Silesia rebelled, seeking to join with Poland.

Third Silesian Uprising (1921)-Polish rebels in the German region of Silesia rebelled, seeking to join with Poland. This uprising concluded with an agreement for part of Silesia to become Polish territory.

Plus, Poland invaded Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938.

The Polish Army, commanded by General Władysław Bortnowski, annexed an area of Czechoslovakia of 801.5 km² with a population of 227,399 people.

The Germans were delighted with this outcome. They were happy to give up a provincial rail centre to Poland; it was a small sacrifice indeed. It spread the blame of the partition of Czechoslovakia, made Poland a seeming accomplice in the process and confused the issue as well as political expectations. Poland was accused of being an accomplice of Nazi Germany - a charge that Warsaw was hard put to deny.[5]
 
2012-10-23 02:41:21 PM  

hdhale: He may never presume to lecture anyone on military issues.


This. Whenever I want to get involved in a land war in Asia, I call Bush, not Obama.
 
2012-10-23 02:44:16 PM  

JesseL: The Southern Dandy: JesseL: And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).

Where'd you get that silly notion?

[www.davejenkins.com image 500x271]

You're right. We are signatories to some of the Hague Conventions. We're not signatory to the Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899 though.


No, the silly notion I was talking about is the silly notion that we don't have to abide by the law. Citation please.
 
2012-10-23 02:47:25 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: hdhale: He may never presume to lecture anyone on military issues.

This. Whenever I want to get involved in a land war in Asia, I call Bush, not Obama.


You should call the real expert. Paul Wolfowitz.
 
2012-10-23 02:53:26 PM  

The Southern Dandy: JesseL: The Southern Dandy: JesseL: And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).

Where'd you get that silly notion?

[www.davejenkins.com image 500x271]

You're right. We are signatories to some of the Hague Conventions. We're not signatory to the Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899 though.

No, the silly notion I was talking about is the silly notion that we don't have to abide by the law. Citation please.


http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule77

"Hence, the use of expanding ammunition is lawful according to the United States if there is "a clear showing of military necessity for its use"."

We've played along a few times with prohibitions on expanding bullets, but haven't explicitly agreed to be bound by such a law.
 
2012-10-23 02:59:13 PM  

The Southern Dandy: JesseL: The Southern Dandy: JesseL: And even if the US were a signatory to the Hague Conventions, they don't apply to conflicts involving other non-signatories that don't abide by them (like everyone we've been fighting lately).

Where'd you get that silly notion?

[www.davejenkins.com image 500x271]

You're right. We are signatories to some of the Hague Conventions. We're not signatory to the Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899 though.

No, the silly notion I was talking about is the silly notion that we don't have to abide by the law. Citation please.


My friend it is a useless argument - they believe they make the rules, so everyone else is always wrong.

But we know they are willing to suspend their concepts of sacred freedoms and rights if they do not like someone - if you are on the out, then you are on the out.

WE FEAR NO ONE!!!!

(my personal comment: arrogant mother f*ckers.)
 
2012-10-23 02:59:24 PM  

craig328: With the end of the Cold War the number of potential enemies has increased and our formerly sure response (nuclear annihilation) is no longer appropriate. The Navy can no longer rely upon relatively few assets wielding the mighty atom hammer...because we can't realistically use that hammer. And the numbers of craft we have today is even less than the numbers we had then.


The real question in regard to our naval might:

How many aircraft carrier battlegroups do we have?

One carrier strike group can practically wage a small war by itself in terms of firepower. In terms of increased firepower, one group can probably do more raw damage than the entire US Navy could in World War I.

We've got 11. 11 nuclear carriers and their associated escort/support ships, each group a fleet unto itself.

What do other countries have?

China has 1 carrier, and is trying to built up to a fleet of 4.

The UK has 1 carrier (1 just was decommissioned), with 2 under construction.

France, Italy, Spain and Russia each have 1 carrier with no immediate plans to build more.

Yeah. In terms of the big capital ships that are the measure of naval might, we have more than the rest of the world combined right now.
 
2012-10-23 03:00:45 PM  

Gdalescrboz: All2morrowsparTs Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-23 12:00:18 PM


Gdalescrboz: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

Actually, Romney said Syria was a strategic ally of Iran because of their access to the sea; that sea being the Mediterranean, because it significantly decreases the distance traveled by oil tankers. Romneys "gaff" was not explaining it to the voting majority who couldn't pass 6th grade geography. You want to know why politicians are vague when they talk? Because simple shiat like that confuses dumb farks like you, leading you to vote for the oppoent. The last thing they want to do is be specific, the masses would be mind farked. They would feel uncomfortable not understanding what they are hearing and vote for the other guy. You are the lowest common demoninator politicians talk to. Fark. You.

Uhm, talk about rationalization of a poor point. Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t.

So if they built an oil-pipeline through Syria guess what they wouldnt have to go through? Dumbshiat


Oh noes! Should we nuke them or invade to stop this potential calamity from occurring?
 
2012-10-23 03:09:29 PM  

Langdon_777: Psst - though I agree mostly, I would like to point out your guys shouldn't have anything to do with the Indian Ocean (you are on the other side of the world) - cept for that navel base named Diego Garcia. Which many peeps on the western side of said ocean consider to be a VERY REAL AND PERMANENT THREAT TO THEIR SOVEREIGNTY (to say nothing about the ships there with totally reprehensible prisons on them!!! Hehe this coming from an Aussie.)


Fair enough opinion. However, presence isn't something that's evaluated on the basis of today. It's evaluated on contingencies and history. Australia is a good example. I mentioned the United States' need for a capable naval force. We need that capability because we do have allies and defense commitments in the area. In your neighborhood, we are signatories to ANZUS and the FPDA. We have alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and until not too many years ago were a member of SEATO. All of those ties usually existed as "in the case of emergency, the United States will show up to protect you". The older arrangements were positioned against the Soviets and Warsaw Pact as well as the PRC. I mentioned China and their naval expansion coincident with their extraterritorial claims in the region. Should there be a regime change in China (or North Korea or Pakistan or India or a host of other places) then we could easily find ourselves with a regime with a nuclear capability whose leadership may not hold the same "let's-not-nuke-the-earth" policy we all enjoy today.

Look at how much effort is being expended against Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. You don't act once the threat is viable; you act before that happens. If Iran's neighbors ask the US for a formal treaty ensuring their security then we'd likely be interested in entertaining such. The world changes very quickly sometimes and excluding ourselves from the Indian Ocean because we don't live there is short-sighted. We tried similar approaches with WW1 and WW2 and neither of those were particularly successful.

As an Australian, I'd suspect you might have an appreciation for a capable ally from such experiences as Port Moresby and Guadalcanal and what those might have meant to Australia proper had they not turned out the way they did.
 
2012-10-23 03:11:16 PM  

Magic_Button: Poland chose the GOP route so when the German blitzkrieg rolled across Poland borders , Polish Lancers on horse back ( a Lance is a stick with a pointy end ) faced off against German panzer tanks .

Now the the GOP is sort of right as was Poland at the time -- there were more Lancers on horseback then German tanks .


Polish horse cavalry engaged tank forces twice. They defeated a German Panzer division and lost to a Soviet tank division. They were 13-1 in infantry engagements. Poland used cavalry as mounted infantry after 1937 -- and it worked really well in the muddy mess that was Poland in early WWII.

Their tanks were for shiat in 1939, but compared to Germany and USSR, everyone's were.
 
2012-10-23 03:13:39 PM  
img.whatsisname.com
 
2012-10-23 03:16:39 PM  
poking an enemy to see whether he is dead

images1.wikia.nocookie.net

qab jIH ngIl!
 
2012-10-23 03:19:46 PM  

Silverstaff: craig328: With the end of the Cold War the number of potential enemies has increased and our formerly sure response (nuclear annihilation) is no longer appropriate. The Navy can no longer rely upon relatively few assets wielding the mighty atom hammer...because we can't realistically use that hammer. And the numbers of craft we have today is even less than the numbers we had then.

The real question in regard to our naval might:

How many aircraft carrier battlegroups do we have?

One carrier strike group can practically wage a small war by itself in terms of firepower. In terms of increased firepower, one group can probably do more raw damage than the entire US Navy could in World War I.

We've got 11. 11 nuclear carriers and their associated escort/support ships, each group a fleet unto itself.

What do other countries have?

China has 1 carrier, and is trying to built up to a fleet of 4.

The UK has 1 carrier (1 just was decommissioned), with 2 under construction.

France, Italy, Spain and Russia each have 1 carrier with no immediate plans to build more.

Yeah. In terms of the big capital ships that are the measure of naval might, we have more than the rest of the world combined right now.


Yes, we do. Since your profile says you're apprised of history and politics, ask yourself: why does the United States have 11 carrier groups? For what purpose do WE (and not England, France, Germany, et al) maintain such high force levels? History will matter in your answer. Most Americans truly have zero clue (which is truly a shame) but I'll give you all the pertinent pieces and you can put them together:

WW1, WW2, Bretton Woods, the UN, the Marshall Plan, the Mutual Security Act, NATO and the WMF.

I always despair of encountering informed folks on Fark (particularly in politically charged forums like this) but I like fishing. Show me whatcha got. :)
 
2012-10-23 03:21:19 PM  
Bayonets?

They've got your bayonets

www.arlingtoncemetery.net
 
2012-10-23 03:22:18 PM  

craig328:
Interesting. Thanks for stating the baldly obvious (how budgets work vs requests). Let me respond by saying your paraphrase is probably accurate but that's NOT was the president was saying last night. If it was then he would have foregone the snark reply and stated the case. He didn't.

Let me add another point of consideration. If we take Romney's assertions at face value (which the president didn't dispute) then we're down in terms of deployable naval assets and poised to sink much further. Consider the environment that Navy works in today compar ... seems like a valid point to bring up that deserved an actual response and not a sound bite zinger.

But that may just be me


Yes, it's just you, concern troll.

And you're a liar on several counts:
1. There were fewer ships in service when Bush was in the Oval Office.

2. Maximum effective projectile range in 1917 - 20 km, in 2012 - 'greater than 7,360km'. (Do you even want to compare the speed of fleet movements?)

3. Our navy is larger and more capable than the next 15 navies COMBINED (most of which belong to allies). Some farker has posted simple pictures in chart form of all the world's aircraft carriers and all the world's nuclear submarines for your edification.

4. "And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships. 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 doesn't work."

See? The president immediately followed the OH SNAP! with a discussion of the budget appropriation process and mission needs.
 
2012-10-23 03:26:55 PM  
Duh, how did you think they were killing the vampires?
 
2012-10-23 03:27:15 PM  

craig328: Langdon_777: Psst - though I agree mostly, I would like to point out your guys shouldn't have anything to do with the Indian Ocean (you are on the other side of the world) - cept for that navel base named Diego Garcia. Which many peeps on the western side of said ocean consider to be a VERY REAL AND PERMANENT THREAT TO THEIR SOVEREIGNTY (to say nothing about the ships there with totally reprehensible prisons on them!!! Hehe this coming from an Aussie.)

Fair enough opinion. However, presence isn't something that's evaluated on the basis of today. It's evaluated on contingencies and history. Australia is a good example. I mentioned the United States' need for a capable naval force. We need that capability because we do have allies and defense commitments in the area. In your neighborhood, we are signatories to ANZUS and the FPDA. We have alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and until not too many years ago were a member of SEATO. All of those ties usually existed as "in the case of emergency, the United States will show up to protect you". The older arrangements were positioned against the Soviets and Warsaw Pact as well as the PRC. I mentioned China and their naval expansion coincident with their extraterritorial claims in the region. Should there be a regime change in China (or North Korea or Pakistan or India or a host of other places) then we could easily find ourselves with a regime with a nuclear capability whose leadership may not hold the same "let's-not-nuke-the-earth" policy we all enjoy today.

Look at how much effort is being expended against Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. You don't act once the threat is viable; you act before that happens. If Iran's neighbors ask the US for a formal treaty ensuring their security then we'd likely be interested in entertaining such. The world changes very quickly sometimes and excluding ourselves from the Indian Ocean because we don't live there is short-sighted. We tried similar ...


LOL you recon an Iranian nuke could reach you? LOL

No it might reach Israel (but they are busy murdering Iranian scientist so it is doubtful.)

My point would be: Iran DOESN'T have the bomb, but Israel does and so do all those bloody B52s, nuke subs and others based out of Diego Garcia - I respect peoples rights to arm themselves against evil mother f*ckers (doesn't that sound like an NRA catch phrase?)

The USoA has no right to be playing around in either the Indian Ocean or the Middle East - please BUTT OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS!!!!!

Now if you were actually amazingly Knight in Shining Armour type who helped all the poor and destitute where ever you may find them - then you would probably find the whole wide WORLD backing you, but you are not - you are a bunch of greedy mother f*c ... ok I stop you get the picture and you know the truth!

Your Exceptionalism will be your downfall (and it will not come from outside but from within ... oh and China you are on even more rocky ground ;)
 
2012-10-23 03:27:55 PM  

Gdalescrboz:

So if they built an oil-pipeline through Syria guess what they wouldnt have to go through? Dumbshiat


Turkey and/or Iraq?

/Would they tunnel under, dumbass?
 
2012-10-23 03:39:34 PM  

Langdon_777: I so wish I could write laws that only benefit me.

Wouldn't that be great.

It's only rape if I do it to a 'signatory', its only murder if I do it to a 'signatory' - and we wonder why the rest of the world is going to get to watch another USoA civil war, its only rape/murder if I do it to a democrat/republican (depending on who is in charge.)


You just don't get international treaties, do you?

Treaties are agreements between governments. The United Nations is a collection of representatives of governments. When these bodies get together to make treaties, they're either agreeing how they will interact with each other, or they're mutually agreeing what they're going to impose on their populaces. There's always a big, fat, SCREW YOU included for any government that doesn't want to play along, or anyone that doesn't want to act within the context of a state.

You don't matter. To paraphrase from Blade Runner, you're not government, you're little people.

If you're looking forward to a civil war, you should remember one critical thing: wars crimes are what the winning side thinks they are. Hope that the winning side thinks that rape is rape even if one of their side do it. If the winning side is flexible enough in their relativism to think that it's not really rape if it happens to the wrong sort of person, well, don't expect that civil war to ever really be over without a genocide. See the Balkans for an example.
 
2012-10-23 03:43:07 PM  

Langdon_777: LOL you recon an Iranian nuke could reach you? LOL

No it might reach Israel (but they are busy murdering Iranian scientist so it is doubtful.)

My point would be: Iran DOESN'T have the bomb, but Israel does and so do all those bloody B52s, nuke subs and others based out of Diego Garcia - I respect peoples rights to arm themselves against evil mother f*ckers (doesn't that sound like an NRA catch phrase?)

The USoA has no right to be playing around in either the Indian Ocean or the Middle East - please BUTT OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS!!!!!

Now if you were actually amazingly Knight in Shining Armour type who helped all the poor and destitute where ever you may find them - then you would probably find the whole wide WORLD backing you, but you are not - you are a bunch of greedy mother f*c ... ok I stop you get the picture and you know the truth!

Your Exceptionalism will be your downfall (and it will not come from outside but from within ... oh and China you are on even more rocky ground ;)



You're right. We should totally trust to someone else's ineptitude for our security. I mean, hey, they probably expended all their little brown people brains in building the bomb, right? Great plan. Sure it'll work out fine.

As for the remainder, let's recap: Australia has over 200,000 casualties in WW1, 60,000 more in WW2. Lessee now, war 1...20 years later war 2...but no war 3 and it's been nearly 70 years. Huh. Must be that coincidence stuff again, eh?

There is a reason the entire globe's economy is tied to the American dollar and why European nations no longer maintain enormous standing armies and navies. Those would be the same reasons why there hasn't been WW3: Electric Boogaloo.

America doesn't need 11 carrier air groups to defend our east and west coasts. The reason we have them and why we are signatories to the UN charter (where we declined to play in the League of Nations) as well as many mutual defense treaties (that don't benefit America militarily all that much) are sheer happenstance. History has zilch to do with it.

Japan was just taking a stroll 70 years ago, right? THAT'LL never happen again though with anyone else in the neighborhood, will it? Nah. One time fluke event.
 
2012-10-23 03:53:14 PM  
One of the last US Bayonet charge(s)

On February 7, 1951, Lewis Millett was serving in Korea as a captain and commander of Company E of the 27th Infantry Regiment. On that day, near Soam-Ni, he led his company in an assault on an enemy position atop Hill 180. When one platoon became pinned down by heavy fire, Millett took another platoon forward, joined the two groups, and led them up the hill.

Wielding his bayonet and throwing hand grenades, Millett yelled encouragement to his soldiers throughout the hand to hand fight. Upon reaching the top of the hill, his men stormed the enemy position and forced the opposing soldiers to withdraw. Although wounded in the shin by grenade fragments, Millett refused to be evacuated until the position was secured

Historian S.L.A. Marshall described the attack as "the most complete bayonet charge by American troops since Cold Harbor". Out of about 50 enemy dead, roughly 20 were found to have been killed by bayonets, and the location subsequently became known as Bayonet Hill

For his leadership during the assault, Millett was awarded the Medal of Honor. The medal was formally presented to him by President Harry S. Truman in July 1951.He was also awarded the Army's second-highest decoration, the Distinguished Service Cross, for leading another bayonet charge in the same month.



Apparently Puerto Rico's 65th U.S. Infantry Regiment led the last recorded battalion-sized bayonet attack by the U.S. Army. Late January 1951 found them south of the Korean capital of Seoul, under orders to take two hills being held by the Chinese 149th Division. The assault began on January 31st, and took three days. On the morning of the third day the top of the hills were within reach, and two battalions of the 65th fixed bayonets and charged straight at the enemy positions. The Chinese fled.



There may be more, think the Brits did some in Iraq and Afghanistan
 
2012-10-23 03:55:50 PM  

plausdeny: Langdon_777: I so wish I could write laws that only benefit me.

Wouldn't that be great.

It's only rape if I do it to a 'signatory', its only murder if I do it to a 'signatory' - and we wonder why the rest of the world is going to get to watch another USoA civil war, its only rape/murder if I do it to a democrat/republican (depending on who is in charge.)

You just don't get international treaties, do you?

Treaties are agreements between governments. The United Nations is a collection of representatives of governments. When these bodies get together to make treaties, they're either agreeing how they will interact with each other, or they're mutually agreeing what they're going to impose on their populaces. There's always a big, fat, SCREW YOU included for any government that doesn't want to play along, or anyone that doesn't want to act within the context of a state.

You don't matter. To paraphrase from Blade Runner, you're not government, you're little people.

If you're looking forward to a civil war, you should remember one critical thing: wars crimes are what the winning side thinks they are. Hope that the winning side thinks that rape is rape even if one of their side do it. If the winning side is flexible enough in their relativism to think that it's not really rape if it happens to the wrong sort of person, well, don't expect that civil war to ever really be over without a genocide. See the Balkans for an example.


Nothing to add.

Though I suggest you hug your kids and enjoy the sun rise.

We truly are ALL in this together.
 
2012-10-23 03:56:02 PM  
Navy ships are cool until the shooting starts, then they get all sinky.
 
2012-10-23 03:58:54 PM  

craig328: Langdon_777: LOL you recon an Iranian nuke could reach you? LOL

No it might reach Israel (but they are busy murdering Iranian scientist so it is doubtful.)

My point would be: Iran DOESN'T have the bomb, but Israel does and so do all those bloody B52s, nuke subs and others based out of Diego Garcia - I respect peoples rights to arm themselves against evil mother f*ckers (doesn't that sound like an NRA catch phrase?)

The USoA has no right to be playing around in either the Indian Ocean or the Middle East - please BUTT OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS!!!!!

Now if you were actually amazingly Knight in Shining Armour type who helped all the poor and destitute where ever you may find them - then you would probably find the whole wide WORLD backing you, but you are not - you are a bunch of greedy mother f*c ... ok I stop you get the picture and you know the truth!

Your Exceptionalism will be your downfall (and it will not come from outside but from within ... oh and China you are on even more rocky ground ;)


You're right. We should totally trust to someone else's ineptitude for our security. I mean, hey, they probably expended all their little brown people brains in building the bomb, right? Great plan. Sure it'll work out fine.

As for the remainder, let's recap: Australia has over 200,000 casualties in WW1, 60,000 more in WW2. Lessee now, war 1...20 years later war 2...but no war 3 and it's been nearly 70 years. Huh. Must be that coincidence stuff again, eh?

There is a reason the entire globe's economy is tied to the American dollar and why European nations no longer maintain enormous standing armies and navies. Those would be the same reasons why there hasn't been WW3: Electric Boogaloo.

America doesn't need 11 carrier air groups to defend our east and west coasts. The reason we have them and why we are signatories to the UN charter (where we declined to play in the League of Nations) as well as many mutual defense treaties (that don't benefit America mi ...


Pretty sure it had to do with my stupid forbears, siding with you stupid forbears - and things like Black Ships, no trade and other bastard acts (I AM SICK OF PEOPLE THINKING THE WEAKEST PARTY SOMEONE CAN DICTATE TO THE BIGGER PARTY!!!!!, oh cept if you have MAD as you backup .....)
 
2012-10-23 04:09:48 PM  

Langdon_777: Pretty sure it had to do with my stupid forbears, siding with you stupid forbears - and things like Black Ships, no trade and other bastard acts (I AM SICK OF PEOPLE THINKING THE WEAKEST PARTY SOMEONE CAN DICTATE TO THE BIGGER PARTY!!!!!, oh cept if you have MAD as you backup .....)


www.aaanything.net

Wat?
 
2012-10-23 04:41:33 PM  

Prince George: way south: So Romney thinks warships are as outdated as bayonets and horses?

Someone outta let the NAVY know.

No Obama thinks that.


My bad.
They are so similar that I get them confused from time to time.
 
2012-10-23 04:49:04 PM  
illegal.tender: "Yeah, I don't know why the GOP is keeping this alive"

Because their identity is wrapped up in being aggressively militaristic.
They can't just let it slide that their guy got caught out demonstrating his ignorance.

Being wrong on a basic military matter is a far, far bigger blow to Mitt's attempt to appear credible to the base than all that flip-flopping.
The only thing worse would be getting shown up on a biblical point.
 
2012-10-23 05:09:41 PM  

asmodeus224: we also still use horses, but in smaller numbers and in a lot of ways as vestigial decorative equipment. Yes, they are still useful, but not in the same way (or in the same numbers) as was in their heyday.

Silly teabaggers desperate to be technically correct. The point stands, military readiness is not a matter of numbers of ships or bayonets.

/forest meet trees


Unlike the Smugly Stupid First Usurper, and his resident retards, we know that Horses and Bayonets are still handy. Doggies may not be issued bayonets, but Marines are. (But we're the professionals.)

Sharp knives on the ends of rifles are for intimidation. Even soldiers in the Civil War knew this. You have to have a great deal of motivation to run onto a knife. An actual bayonet wound in the Civil War was a rarity to be commented on. Candles were given out, back then, that had the end small enough to fit in a bayonet socket, You could use a bayonet to stick in the ground and hold your ramrod, so you could load faster. (The bayonet got in the way of loading, anyhow.)

Like all droolers who have never been closer to the ACTUAL military than the movies, readyness means having the men and equipment READY TO GO at a moment's notice. As in "Get your shiat an' git!"

You draw your weapons from the company armory. You nail the lids on the mount out boxes, and send a detail to the motor pool and draw the Six-Bys, and if you can't truck it, fark it. An hour later you are waiting along the side of the runway for the Air Farce to get it's thumb out and the C-17s to arrive.

SF was even going back to horses in the 'Stan. A horse is pretty handy. since humping 120 lbs of gear up a 4,000 meter mountain, on a trail 1 meter wide is a real ass kicker, and a HumVee doesn't cut it. (Helicopters lose steam above about 12,000 ft.)

 
2012-10-23 05:09:49 PM  

ringersol: Because their identity is wrapped up in being aggressively militaristic.


Never mind that their candidate this go-around is a Chickenhawk First Class.

Actively protested in favor of the Vietnam War and the draft. . .while obtaining 2 and half years of religious deferments and 3 years of academic deferments to avoid actually serving.

President Obama didn't serve either, but at least he didn't go out of his way to be a warhawk without backing it up.

Hypocrisy, it's what Romney does best.
 
2012-10-23 05:10:08 PM  
This entire thread reminds me of this:

farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-10-23 05:13:25 PM  

craig328: Yes, we do. Since your profile says you're apprised of history and politics, ask yourself: why does the United States have 11 carrier groups? For what purpose do WE (and not England, France, Germany, et al) maintain such high force levels? History will matter in your answer. Most Americans truly have zero clue (which is truly a shame) but I'll give you all the pertinent pieces and you can put them together:

WW1, WW2, Bretton Woods, the UN, the Marshall Plan, the Mutual Security Act, NATO and the WMF.

I always despair of encountering informed folks on Fark (particularly in politically charged forums like this) but I like fishing. Show me whatcha got. :)



You want to know why carriers are the backbone of our navy and why we've got more?

Okay. (BTW, I'm no troll, I just happen to agree with the President on this issue, and in terms of actual combat effectiveness, our Navy is stronger with the 285 ships we have today than the peak number of 6768 we had in WWII. Quantity does not equal quality, because of technology as a force multiplier. A single modern infantry company could easily devastate an entire battlefield from an earlier century, for example.)

Naval aviation was in its infancy when WWI ended. The aircraft carrier was still an experimental concept, thus it wasn't even mentioned in the Treaty of Versailles when the number of battleships was regulated. The US invested heavily in aircraft carriers in the interwar period, more heavily than most other countries. Conventional military wisdom was that battleships were the backbone of a navy, with heavy armor and big guns. We had mighty battleships, as did every other country.

This investment probably saved the US in WW II. The strike at Pearl Harbor was timed to be when the most battleships were in port, thanks to Japanese spies on the islands. However, virtually all the carriers were at sea at the time. Thus, our naval aviation assets were not affected, while our battleship fleet was crippled. In the early phase of World War II, we had to rely on submarines and aircraft carriers for seapower until battleships could be raised, repaired or built. By the Battle of Coral Sea in May 1942, we had achieved a decisive naval victory through aircraft carriers alone, a victory which turned the tide of the entire Pacific theater and put the Japanese on the defensive.

While most of the navies of the rest of the world were shattered, we still kept significant naval strength. Although much of that fleet was destroyed at the Operation Crossroads, only 2 obsolete carriers were scuttled in that nuclear test. Even in the postwar downsizing the emphasis on naval airpower was retained.

After the war, there were questions about the survivability and role of a navy in a nuclear environment. However, the role of aircraft carriers for force projection was not discounted, especially with the possibility of using a carrier as a nuclear aircraft launch platform. With the rising tensions of the cold war, the ability of the carrier was leaned on again as a plank of naval power. The USSR did not pursue carrier power (despite requests from Soviet Naval brass) on the grounds that carriers were too politically associated with the US and capitalism. Political ideology won out over military practicality (as often happened in the Soviet Union). Most other nations settled for helicopter carriers, the smaller, lighter carriers that the US doesn't even count as full carriers.

The advent of the nuclear navy changed everything. The USS Enterprise, as the first nuclear carrier, had practically unlimited range without refueling, and had remarkable speed for a vessel of its immense size. This gave the US the ability to put an entire air wing pretty much anywhere in the worlds oceans on short notice. Its immense success gave rise to the Nimitz class carriers, the backbone of the modern navy. After the end of the Cold War, the gradual realignment of world politics and the demonstrated ability of the aircraft carrier has every major naval power in the world wanting at least one carrier, but the US has decades of lead in the field of naval aviation. Even as the military was downsizing after the war, the clear power of the carrier spared the Big E and the Nimitz class from being mothballed or scrapped (while the last conventional carriers were finally phased out).

So, we have as many carriers as the rest of the world combined because of decades of military tradition created due to the wording of the Treaty of Versailles, the fortunes of war in WWII, and the massive buildup during the Cold War put us way ahead, so when the rest of the world decided to invest in carrier air power, we were the clear and undisputed leader in the field.
 
2012-10-23 05:17:32 PM  

James!: "Fewer" is still more than "none".


blog.torgodevil.com
 
2012-10-23 05:24:47 PM  

The WindowLicker: IAmRight: Yup. But '03-'07.

There are probably more training "bayonets" than there are actual bayonets. I do recall seeing them on armory inventory, though, even though no one ever used them.

/never learned to affix one to a rifle/remove one from a rifle or anything like that.

I deployed with one. The Marine Corps has actually tried to incorporate more training with them in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (it replaced LINE training).

The Corps even developed a new more awesome bigger bayonet which looks sort of like a k-bar that took steroids. I carried mine with me in Iraq, even on the plane (but they took away my nail clippers). I think I used it to engage a 'steak' that needed turning over on the 'grill' we made out of a 55gallon drum.

That said, the President was right. We need to spend our money more intelligently. Knives on the end of our rifles are not as tactically important as they once were. Functional satellite communications are key. We don't need to buy 2,000 more tanks. We are not using all the ones we have already. We need to spend the money on our tactical and strategic needs. President Obama had an ironclad point. There is no way for Romney to defend his position. (maybe if he had some more battleships...)


As I've said elsewhere, knives on the ends of rifles are pure intimidation. Look up "riot control." A muzzle is scary. A knife on that muzzle is dishdash shiatting time. . 

By the way, that you've never been to Chicago is glaring. In Cook County, cops and aldermen and mayors and congressmen and governors and senators are for sale. Someone who can't be bought can't be trusted, and will NOT rise in the Organization. (Let's see? Who is from Chicago, and has the full backing of the Machine? Hmmm? Think, think, think...) (I've bought cops and aldermen. I couldn't afford a governor...)

 
2012-10-23 05:25:51 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.


I don't think they understand how critically important the Straights of Hormuz are to global energy security, or how the escalating military tensions at the straights threaten some of our close allies. I'm wondering if any of them even caught on to the fact that Romney does not have the first clue about one of the most likely spots for a military flashpoint on the globe. Foreign Policy questions should come from people who are at least somewhat familiar with foreign policy and potential failure points.
 
2012-10-23 05:26:56 PM  
With the exception of a field expedient mine probe, they're largely a useless tool. If someone comes close enough where hand to hand is an issue, pull out your entrenching tool. That thing will do waaaay more damage to a human being than a thin knife.
 
2012-10-23 05:29:45 PM  

pedobearapproved: James!: "Fewer" is still more than "none".

[blog.torgodevil.com image 400x301]


Wat? '"Fewer" is still more than "none"' is no technicality, that's just... the direct meaning of the statement.

If (in some very Bizarro universe) the number had decreased a little but the overall size decreased a lot and so the proportion of influence that bayonets had increased, then the statement would be a technicality. If Romney had come back with "actually there are more bayonets today" but only because the overall military is way bigger (I don't know if this is true, but it is conceivable), I'd say that's a technicality.

"There are fewer ships than the Navy wants!"
"But we're at 287 out of 300 or 313!"
"TECHNICALITY! THAT'S ALMOST NONE!"
 
2012-10-23 05:37:13 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: We don't use that term here in the States. It's the Secretary of the Navy.

BTW: Obama doesn't give out permission slips for the Navy to build things, Congress does. Also the Navy is larger by ship count than in 2007..... It was a stupid statement by Romney using a hundred year old stat as the basis for more ships. He was wrong and Obama pointed out how wrong he was.


The President and his administration sets the tone.Reagan's "^600 ship navy" and all of that stuff.

If the ships hull count is higher after 5 years then it's the result of the previous administrations work. Modern warships take up to 5 years to produce. New designs can take up to a decade for the first one to go out sea.

We are soon going to see block obsolescence of entire classes of ships and submarines as that "600 ship navy" reaches the end of their designed lifespan. Unless we build new ones now we won't even have the older ones around should the need arise. Ships wear out. No amount of modern technology will prevent that from happening.

As far as Syria goes the point is that by Iran having forward bases there the distance to one of the worlds vital shipping zones (The Med) is cut by roughly the span of the Atlantic with none of the hassle of navigating the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal (navigational hazards that the Atlantic doesn't have). Ignoring the logistics of all of that it cuts the transit time down by at least a week and avoids some serious choke points. Alternatively they can go around the Horn of Africa and add over a month to any transit time to get to any strategically significant area (provided that they can bring along enough fuel to get there and then get back home again).

Silverstaff: Okay, time to learn something about military budget requests.

There is the number they'll ask for if money is unlimited. Their dream request. Everything and a pony too.

Then there's what they actually expect to get, what is realistic and what they know they can do their job with.

That pie-in-the-sky number may be 313, but they know they can do it with a lot less, and after budget talks between the SECNAV and the JCS and the POTUS, they'll settle on a number that can do the job, but also fit into the budget reality. That's what President Obama was saying, that they are getting what they need, after negotiations and discussion with the top brass to see what was really needed and what was more of a wish list.

Yeah, the Navy might not be getting their dreams, but they are getting everything they need to do the job.


And now it's time for you to learn something about the Navy's ship needs. The navy always takes the long term view on shipbuilding and maintenance. It has to because it always spans multiple administrations. Individual administrations tend to think in the here and now (some more than others) and don't usually look too far beyond the next election cycle. These are the facts and they are indisputable.

The current number of requested ships (313) is the result of the negotiations that you suggested above. The ponies and rainbows wish list number is much higher than that (much closer to 400). The navy tends to have about 35% to 40% of its ships at sea at any given moment. This number cannot be raised without serious material and morale issues later on down the line. This number allows for 125 ships to be at sea covering 135 million square miles of ocean or more than a million square miles per ship. The current number (285) cuts that number by 11 to 114 ships at sea.

Of those ships at sea some are not where they are wanted but either on their way there or on their way back home. That cuts into the number of ships available to do the things that the various administrations ask them to do. Often times the mere presence of a ship (or even the threat to send one) is all that it takes to settle a situation without a shot being fired. The people who might wish to do us or our friends harm know this and they know what we have available. If we don't have enough ships to cover what we need to be able to cover then the threat of sending ships becomes toothless.

The navy has added two new ships to it's roster since January 2009. It is going to have to scrap many of the old ones soon thus it needs to start building their replacements now. There is no new warship lot that we can go to and take a test drive and steam off the pier that afternoon.

Long. Term. View. Learn what it means.
 
SH
2012-10-23 05:38:24 PM  

sigdiamond2000: I see the "liberal media" is running with this "BONGFARTO SEZ THERES NO BAY-O-NETS ANYMORE" thing.


Is this the best the Republitards can do any more? I see gibberish like this all over the 'net. C'mon you conservatards, at least put up an intelligent fight.
 
2012-10-23 05:41:53 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: Gdalescrboz: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

Actually, Romney said Syria was a strategic ally of Iran because of their access to the sea; that sea being the Mediterranean, because it significantly decreases the distance traveled by oil tankers. Romneys "gaff" was not explaining it to the voting majority who couldn't pass 6th grade geography. You want to know why politicians are vague when they talk? Because simple shiat like that confuses dumb farks like you, leading you to vote for the oppoent. The last thing they want to do is be specific, the masses would be mind farked. They would feel uncomfortable not understanding what they are hearing and vote for the other guy. You are the lowest common demoninator politicians talk to. Fark. You.

Uhm, talk about rationalization of a poor point. Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t.


When calling other people dumbsh*t, you should first make sure you're not absolutely farking wrong. The Suez Canal is on the other side of Saudi Arabia, and though some of Iran's oil passes through there, some also goes up the Caspian, then takes the Jon to the Black Sea and enters Russian (and formerly Russian Territories), that said, the overwhelming bulk of Iranian oil goes through neither west-facing passage and instead goes through the Straights of Hormuz to the Asian and South Asian markets. Bandar e Abbas is Iran's largest port, and less than 21% of the oil leaving from there has a destination listed west of Iran. Even if we take your "through the Mediterranean" qualifier that Romney didn't add, still less than half of what gets shipped into the Mediterranean region goes through the Suez, mostly because it's far cheaper to send it up through the Caspian, then pipe it to the eastern Euro region. In short, you are categorically wrong in every way imaginable, may God have mercy on your dumbf^&k soul.
 
2012-10-23 05:47:36 PM  

Radioactive Ass: The current number of requested ships (313) is the result of the negotiations that you suggested above. The ponies and rainbows wish list number is much higher than that (much closer to 400)


The naval secretary Ray Mabus has said that the number is more like 300, and that the 313 number is out of date (being from a 2005 report). That cuts the gap between what we have and what the Navy wants in half.

I'm a liberal, and even I'll admit that the "omg we're going to have 240 ships" or whatever doesn't sound good, but I think you're making things out to be worse than they are. And the federal budget also needs to cave somewhere -- and the military budget I think has to be a substantial part of that. It's not ideal, sure. But we don't have unlimited money either.
 
2012-10-23 06:03:06 PM  

Egoy3k: hdhale: Obama's record...as brief as it was in the Senate...regarding military spending generally is he hates it and usually voted against it. He does demonstrate however the adeptness of a contortionist when it came time to take credit and slap himself on the back for getting bin Laden--something done thanks to years of intell work dating back to 2001 and the money spent on equipment and training by the Bush administration on Special Operations forces.

No, Mr. Obama may lecture me any time on the difficulties of growing up as a mixed race child with a mixed religious background. He may also lecture me on the best places to get good food in Chicago. He may never presume to lecture anyone on military issues.




So anyone who disagrees with you is unqualified to do so by virtue of disagreeing with you?

When it comes to the military, and the way things are done, there, Hollywood is not a suitable educational substitute. As a Lib, and profoundly stupid going in, disagreeing with us is a demonstration of substantial mental retardation. A 12 Ranked wizard on WoW is NOT a recommendation of war fighting knowledge.

By the way, if you want free lifetime healthcare join the Marines. Then you can go to the VA, and appreciate government run medicine.

 
2012-10-23 06:20:57 PM  

Deep Contact: They attach these to rifles now. Some kind of short light amplification device.


You can't fool me, that's off a Graflex camera!

Besides, hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
 
2012-10-23 06:36:46 PM  

firefly212: When calling other people dumbsh*t, you should first make sure you're not absolutely farking wrong. The Suez Canal is on the other side of Saudi Arabia, and though some of Iran's oil passes through there, some also goes up the Caspian, then takes the Jon to the Black Sea and enters Russian (and formerly Russian Territories), that said, the overwhelming bulk of Iranian oil goes through neither west-facing passage and instead goes through the Straights of Hormuz to the Asian and South Asian markets. Bandar e Abbas is Iran's largest port, and less than 21% of the oil leaving from there has a destination listed west of Iran. Even if we take your "through the Mediterranean" qualifier that Romney didn't add, still less than half of what gets shipped into the Mediterranean region goes through the Suez, mostly because it's far cheaper to send it up through the Caspian, then pipe it to the eastern Euro region. In short, you are categorically wrong in every way imaginable, may God have mercy on your dumbf^&k soul.


Hey dipshiat: Oddly, no where in your analysis do you mention that Iran is currently sending any oil through Syria.
 
2012-10-23 06:41:54 PM  
I was in the Army from 90 to 94 and we had them. They weren't the old fashioned pigstickers you see in old war movies, but full on utility knives with a lug to stick it on your rifle. Properly used you had a short spear.

Man, those things were nasty. Very glad I never had to use one in combat.
 
2012-10-23 06:45:34 PM  
fark a bunch of stabbing people, this is the real reason for the demise of the bayonet
www.timesnews.net
 
2012-10-23 06:49:34 PM  

Taylor Mental: fark a bunch of stabbing people, this is the real reason for the demise of the bayonet
[www.timesnews.net image 349x500]


Ah, yes, I remember when one of those gouging a chunk out of your chest when the hinge wore down was a sign to replace it.
 
2012-10-23 06:51:54 PM  
Oh, is THAT what I've been doing wrong?
 
2012-10-23 06:53:02 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: firefly212: When calling other people dumbsh*t, you should first make sure you're not absolutely farking wrong. The Suez Canal is on the other side of Saudi Arabia, and though some of Iran's oil passes through there, some also goes up the Caspian, then takes the Jon to the Black Sea and enters Russian (and formerly Russian Territories), that said, the overwhelming bulk of Iranian oil goes through neither west-facing passage and instead goes through the Straights of Hormuz to the Asian and South Asian markets. Bandar e Abbas is Iran's largest port, and less than 21% of the oil leaving from there has a destination listed west of Iran. Even if we take your "through the Mediterranean" qualifier that Romney didn't add, still less than half of what gets shipped into the Mediterranean region goes through the Suez, mostly because it's far cheaper to send it up through the Caspian, then pipe it to the eastern Euro region. In short, you are categorically wrong in every way imaginable, may God have mercy on your dumbf^&k soul.

Hey dipshiat: Oddly, no where in your analysis do you mention that Iran is currently sending any oil through Syria.


None of the Piplelinistan Deal has been constructed yet, Syria is not a commerce transit point for Iranian pipeline flows currently, nor is it in any way the most efficient route from Iran to the Mediterranean (piped from Caspian nations costs far less). I do not mention it because it is misleading at best to indicate that Syria's capacity is in any way detrimental or positively effecting Iran.

The point being rebutted was "Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t."

The problems with this are as follows.

1. Iran ships plenty of oil to the mediterranean region via the Northern Early, the Western Early, and the Caspian Pipeline... incredible amounts go via Azerbaijan and Georgia, neither of which is Syria or the Suez.

2. Arguing that shipping to the Mediterranean was the point is disingenuous, considering that nearly 80 percent of Iran's oil exports go east, not west.

3. Narrowing the argument to the Suez canal still doesn't bring any relation of Syria into the fold, as the Suez is in Egypt, which also does not share a border with Syria.

Put simply, from a foreign policy point, you farkers don't seem to be able to read a map, let alone understand where various nations national exports get ported out. The fact that you're all hellbent on arguing about ports and passages west of Iran, when most of their exports go east, just demonstrates how ill-prepared you are to actually talk foreign policy. The fact that you guys are talking about Syria as a solution to Iran is just laughable. The fact that the guy running for President doesn't understand where the Straights of Hormuz are, or why there's such concern about military buildups there should scare the hell out of you people, but you're too hung up on this dumbf$#k question of where Syria is to actually wrap around questions of Global Security Policy when it comes to figuring out how we deal with Iran's ability to effectively close the entire Persian Gulf, doing great harm to our allies in the region.
 
2012-10-23 06:55:45 PM  

gglibertine: Oh, is THAT what I've been doing wrong?


You don't keep yours on your dog tag chain?
 
2012-10-23 07:37:17 PM  

firefly212: Satanic_Hamster: firefly212: When calling other people dumbsh*t, you should first make sure you're not absolutely farking wrong. The Suez Canal is on the other side of Saudi Arabia, and though some of Iran's oil passes through there, some also goes up the Caspian, then takes the Jon to the Black Sea and enters Russian (and formerly Russian Territories), that said, the overwhelming bulk of Iranian oil goes through neither west-facing passage and instead goes through the Straights of Hormuz to the Asian and South Asian markets. Bandar e Abbas is Iran's largest port, and less than 21% of the oil leaving from there has a destination listed west of Iran. Even if we take your "through the Mediterranean" qualifier that Romney didn't add, still less than half of what gets shipped into the Mediterranean region goes through the Suez, mostly because it's far cheaper to send it up through the Caspian, then pipe it to the eastern Euro region. In short, you are categorically wrong in every way imaginable, may God have mercy on your dumbf^&k soul.

Hey dipshiat: Oddly, no where in your analysis do you mention that Iran is currently sending any oil through Syria.

None of the Piplelinistan Deal has been constructed yet, Syria is not a commerce transit point for Iranian pipeline flows currently, nor is it in any way the most efficient route from Iran to the Mediterranean (piped from Caspian nations costs far less). I do not mention it because it is misleading at best to indicate that Syria's capacity is in any way detrimental or positively effecting Iran.

The point being rebutted was "Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t."

The problems with this are as follows.

1. Iran ships plenty of oil to the mediterranean region via the Northern Early, the Western Early, and the Caspian Pipeline... incredible amounts go via Azerbaijan and Georgia, neither of which is Syria or the Suez.

2. Arguing that shipping to the Mediterranean was the po ...


Really? Because to the rest of us, it really seems that Romney said something stupid and then morons are twisting like mad to come up with a justification to make his statement seem deep and clever.
 
2012-10-23 07:54:14 PM  
What a Chinese aircraft carrier might actually does look like:



www.woodpilereport.com

Now this thing is an aircraft carrier but it has (a) no planes and (b) was bought for another reason.

Can you guess why?

For the same reason China (and Russia) purchase all manner of things, to reverse engineer them.

They are already projecting foreign policy from the Federal Reserve Bank to the Congo, and anyplace else with the same natural resources that they and the Japanese in the 1930's lacked.

So they will want to secure their hegemony in some manner, and without aircraft carriers and CV's in some number they can't project sea power.

Obama is (for now) President, but he is neither a student of history or knowledgeable of it's recent lessons as the Aussies above well recall with Port Moresby. The War was almost game, set match before.

Obama (and Romney) would well spend some time with a historian who can explain just how busy Roosevelt was a long time before Pearl Harbor....

To turn now from the particular lessons drawn from the history of the past to the general question of the influence of government upon the sea career of its people, it is seen that that influence can work in two distinct but closely related ways.

First, in peace: The government by its policy can favor the natural growth of a people's industries and its tendencies to seek adventure and gain by way of the sea; or it can try to develop such industries and such sea-going bent, when they do not naturally exist; or, on the other hand, the government may, by mistaken action check and fetter the progress which the people left to themselves would make. In any one of these ways the influence of the government will be felt, making or marring the sea power of the country in the matter of peaceful commerce; upon which alone, it cannot be too often insisted, a thoroughly strong navy can be based.

Secondly, for war: The influence of the government will be felt in its most legitimate manner in maintaining an armed navy, of a size commensurate with the growth of its shipping and the importance of the interests connected with it. More important even than the size of the navy is the question of its institutions, favoring a healthful spirit and activity, and providing for rapid development in time of war by an adequate reserve of men and of ships and by measures for drawing out that general reserve power which has before been pointed to, when considering the character and pursuits of the people. Undoubtedly under this second head of warlike preparation must come the maintenance of suitable naval stations, in those distant parts of the world to which the armed shipping must follow the peaceful vessels of commerce. The protection of such stations must depend either upon direct military force, as do Gibraltar and Malta, or upon a surrounding friendly population, such as the American colonists once were to England, and, it may be presumed, the Australian colonists now are. Such friendly surroundings and backing, joined to a reasonable military provision, are the best of defences, and when combined with decided preponderance at sea, make a scattered and extensive empire, like that of England, secure; for while it is true that an unexpected attack may cause disaster in some one quarter, the actual superiority of naval power prevents such disaster from being general or irremediable. History has sufficiently proved this. England's naval bases have been in all parts of the world; and her fleets have at once protected them, kept open the communications between them, and relied upon them for shelter.

Colonies attached to the mother-country afford, therefore, the surest means of supporting abroad the sea power of a country. In peace, the influence of the government should be felt in promoting by all means a warmth of attachment and a unity of interest which will make the welfare of one the welfare of all, and the quarrel of one the quarrel of all; and in war, or rather for war, by inducing such measures of organization and defence as shall be felt by all to be a fair distribution of a burden of which each reaps the benefit.

Such colonies the United States has not and is not likely to have. As regards purely military naval stations, the feeling of her people was probably accurately expressed by an historian of the English navy a hundred years ago, speaking then of Gibraltar and Port Mahon. "Military governments," said he, "agree so little with the industry of a trading people, and are in themselves so repugnant to the genius of the British people, that I do not wonder that men of good sense and of all parties have inclined to give up these, as Tangiers was given up." Having therefore no foreign establishments, either colonial or military, the ships of war of the United States, in war, will be like land birds, unable to fly far from their own shores. To provide resting-places for them, where they can coal and repair, would be one of the first duties of a government proposing to itself the development of the power of the nation at sea....

The question is eminently one in which the influence of the government should make itself felt, to build up for the nation a navy which, if not capable of reaching distant countries, shall at least be able to keep clear the chief approaches to its own. The eyes of the country have for a quarter of a century been turned from the sea; the results of such a policy and of its opposite will be shown in the instance of France and of England. Without asserting a narrow parallelism between the case of the United States and either of these, it may safely be said that it is essential to the welfare of the whole country that the conditions of trade and commerce should remain, as far as possible, unaffected by an external war. In order to do this, the enemy must be kept not only out of our ports, but far away from our coasts.


- Alfred T. Mahan on Sea Power, 1890
 
2012-10-23 08:07:21 PM  
firefly212 2012-10-23 05:41:53 PM


All2morrowsparTs: Gdalescrboz: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

Actually, Romney said Syria was a strategic ally of Iran because of their access to the sea; that sea being the Mediterranean, because it significantly decreases the distance traveled by oil tankers. Romneys "gaff" was not explaining it to the voting majority who couldn't pass 6th grade geography. You want to know why politicians are vague when they talk? Because simple shiat like that confuses dumb farks like you, leading you to vote for the oppoent. The last thing they want to do is be specific, the masses would be mind farked. They would feel uncomfortable not understanding what they are hearing and vote for the other guy. You are the lowest common demoninator politicians talk to. Fark. You.

Uhm, talk about rationalization of a poor point. Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t.

When calling other people dumbsh*t, you should first make sure you're not absolutely farking wrong. The Suez Canal is on the other side of Saudi Arabia, and though some of Iran's oil passes through there, some also goes up the Caspian, then takes the Jon to the Black Sea and enters Russian (and formerly Russian Territories), that said, the overwhelming bulk of Iranian oil goes through neither west-facing passage and instead goes through the Straights of Hormuz to the Asian and South Asian markets. Bandar e Abbas is Iran's largest port, and less than 21% of the oil leaving from there has a destination listed west of Iran. Even if we take your "through the Mediterranean" qualifier that Romney didn't add, still less than half of what gets shipped into the Mediterranean region goes through the Suez, mostly because it's far cheaper to send it up through the Caspian, then pipe it to the eastern Euro region. In short, you are categorically wrong in every way imaginable, may God have mercy on your dumbf^&k soul.


First, to everyone asking me how Iran would get a pipeline to Syria without going thorugh Iraq, tkae a minute to check out the deal Iraq/Syria/Iran just signed to build a pipeline.

Second, I am not, nor did i ever, say that all of Iran's oil goes through the Suez Canal. Where they fark everyone got that idea I have no idea, i think one clown insenuated it then everyone else climbed on board. I said Iran will be able to avoid going through the Suez canal if they build a pipeline through Syria, which is what they are going to do. Maybe you guys know somethign that Iran doesn't, which isn't possible, about shiping it's oil. There must be a reason Iran is building a pipeline through Syria, and i guaran-farkin-tee it's not because it's more expensive.
 
2012-10-23 08:20:32 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Really? Because to the rest of us, it really seems that Romney said something stupid and then morons are twisting like mad to come up with a justification to make his statement seem deep and clever.


Romney's point was that Iran is apparently looking at putting in a forward base on the Syrian coast to port some warships in, not that they were going to ship oil through there. It cuts close to 3,000 miles from the transit time and makes them an immediate threat to other ships in the Med as well as anyone with a coastline on the eastern side of the Med (guess who that might be? Go ahead, guess). Just from a logistical standpoint that makes it something worth talking about.

Even ships in the Caspian have to do a substantial bit of transiting through some narrow gaps to get into the med which gives other nations plenty of warning that trouble may be afoot.

There is no spin here, it;s simple geography.
 
2012-10-23 08:52:20 PM  
Bayonet charges were already obsolete in 1916
 
2012-10-23 09:28:16 PM  

daxxenos: The WindowLicker: IAmRight: Yup. But '03-'07.

There are probably more training "bayonets" than there are actual bayonets. I do recall seeing them on armory inventory, though, even though no one ever used them.

/never learned to affix one to a rifle/remove one from a rifle or anything like that.

I deployed with one. The Marine Corps has actually tried to incorporate more training with them in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (it replaced LINE training).

The Corps even developed a new more awesome bigger bayonet which looks sort of like a k-bar that took steroids. I carried mine with me in Iraq, even on the plane (but they took away my nail clippers). I think I used it to engage a 'steak' that needed turning over on the 'grill' we made out of a 55gallon drum.

That said, the President was right. We need to spend our money more intelligently. Knives on the end of our rifles are not as tactically important as they once were. Functional satellite communications are key. We don't need to buy 2,000 more tanks. We are not using all the ones we have already. We need to spend the money on our tactical and strategic needs. President Obama had an ironclad point. There is no way for Romney to defend his position. (maybe if he had some more battleships...)

As I've said elsewhere, knives on the ends of rifles are pure intimidation. Look up "riot control." A muzzle is scary. A knife on that muzzle is dishdash shiatting time. .  By the way, that you've never been to Chicago is glaring. In Cook County, cops and aldermen and mayors and congressmen and governors and senators are for sale. Someone who can't be bought can't be trusted, and will NOT rise in the Organization. (Let's see? Who is from Chicago, and has the full backing of the Machine? Hmmm? Think, think, think...) (I've bought cops and aldermen. I couldn't afford a governor...)


Shut the fark up, troll.
 
2012-10-23 09:47:50 PM  
Rifle affixed blades are so 19th century.

What we NEED is a new, improved, more intimidating rifle-affixed personal close-in weapon system, or PCIWS, likely to be referred to afterwards as "pixie whiz" in mil speak.

Personally, I'd like something with some really nasty looking blades, that spins. Sort of like a "will it blend" for the intestines of your enemies. Think the ending of "Black Hole".

Since you already have too many things that require batteries in the field, it ought to charge with solar cells, so as to be kind to the environment, yet provide several minutes of close in abdomen slicing, even when encountering body armor. When about to engage, the blades ought to spring out with an intimidating "ka-CHANG!", if the motor action doesn't sound intimidating enough, there should be a digitally synthesized whirring or possibly chainsaw sound. Pulsating red LEDs would be nice here as well, as would crawly, annoying electrical discharges.

In addition, since you're likely to have some sort of annunciation system on it to enhance the sound effect (again, consider the whirring sound of the Intestinizor on "Black Hole"), you could add in an effective multi-lingual intimidation system...imagine "I'm covered in pork fat!" in Arabic, or "You're my 37th victim this month!" in Urdu.

Finally, I think it might even be possible to add in a thrust-triggered 12ga dust round, if you're just not chewing the guy up fast enough, poke him really hard with the business end and whammo! he's pulped. Since the sound of the round going off in the guy might not be loud enough to get the terror factor up to max, an optional "HAHAHA!" or locale-specific mockery might be triggered when the dust round goes off.
 
2012-10-23 09:59:45 PM  
Oh, and it should be easy to clean. It gets really old sitting around cleaning weapons and gear when you really want to eat or hit the sack or both.
 
2012-10-23 10:50:38 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: firefly212: Satanic_Hamster: firefly212: When calling other people dumbsh*t, you should first make sure you're not absolutely farking wrong. The Suez Canal is on the other side of Saudi Arabia, and though some of Iran's oil passes through there, some also goes up the Caspian, then takes the Jon to the Black Sea and enters Russian (and formerly Russian Territories), that said, the overwhelming bulk of Iranian oil goes through neither west-facing passage and instead goes through the Straights of Hormuz to the Asian and South Asian markets. Bandar e Abbas is Iran's largest port, and less than 21% of the oil leaving from there has a destination listed west of Iran. Even if we take your "through the Mediterranean" qualifier that Romney didn't add, still less than half of what gets shipped into the Mediterranean region goes through the Suez, mostly because it's far cheaper to send it up through the Caspian, then pipe it to the eastern Euro region. In short, you are categorically wrong in every way imaginable, may God have mercy on your dumbf^&k soul.

Hey dipshiat: Oddly, no where in your analysis do you mention that Iran is currently sending any oil through Syria.

None of the Piplelinistan Deal has been constructed yet, Syria is not a commerce transit point for Iranian pipeline flows currently, nor is it in any way the most efficient route from Iran to the Mediterranean (piped from Caspian nations costs far less). I do not mention it because it is misleading at best to indicate that Syria's capacity is in any way detrimental or positively effecting Iran.

The point being rebutted was "Iran doesn't ship oil through the mediteranian except throught the Suez Canal dumbsh*t."

The problems with this are as follows.

1. Iran ships plenty of oil to the mediterranean region via the Northern Early, the Western Early, and the Caspian Pipeline... incredible amounts go via Azerbaijan and Georgia, neither of which is Syria or the Suez.

2. Arguing that shipping to the Mediterranea ...


I agree wholeheartedly that Romney said something stupid... my explanation of exactly where Iran's oil goes and how it gets there is in no way a defense of his idiocy, and much to the contrary, I think his lack of understanding of the importance of the Straights of Hormuz is demonstrative of a fundamental misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about the region. It was meant as a refutation of All2morrowsparTs ' attempt at backing Romney up (I think) by baselessly asserting that Iran was somehow dependent on the Suez. I did not address Gdalescrboz's claim that a Syrian port would cut a significant amount off of the transit for Iranian oil. The reality of things is that it doesn't cut a whole lot off of transportation time off of the Southern Early, but having a good web of pipelines would be advantageous to Iranian efforts to bypass sanctions. That said, at this time, it seems like the Pipelinistan agreement, though complete in principle is not well funded, and the instability in Syria and Iraq makes it somewhat unlikely to be built any time soon. Besides that, the cultural gap between the Persians and Arabs is still somewhat of an issue when considering pipeline placement and the potential for sabotage. That said, if the arguement is solely about pipeline placement and Iranian oil exports, we're not being realistic if we think Syria is a major player, considering that nearly 80% of the Iranian exports go east, not west.
 
2012-10-23 11:01:49 PM  
I thought bayonets were pretty much replaced by RJ45s
 
2012-10-24 12:12:39 AM  

Grungehamster: Satanic_Hamster: So.... Bayonets is a talking point.

Romney thinking that Iran and Syria share a boarder and that Iran doesn't have any ocean access isn't.

But remember, the liberal media is out to get Republicans.

How about indicting the President of Iran for inciting genocide? Not even getting into the dispute over the most accurate translation of Ahmadinejad's words, doesn't the idea that his words incited genocide require that genocide happens subsequent to the statement being made?

Apparently not. Can anyone imagine arresting a US President for saying (not taking any explicit action, saying) that a nation we see as a threat must be destroyed?


Oh hell, son, not only can I imagine a President saying that a nation we see as a threat must be destroyed, I'm old enough where I can remember where a sitting President caused a major diplomatic incident making a comment in a mic-test that aired live on national radio in a weekly address with such a comment.

Specifically, Ronald Reagan's little gaff about "I've just signed legislation outlawing Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

And before that, back in World War II there was quite a lot of noise about destroying Germany AND Japan (up to and including a plan in WW II to pretty much reduce Germany to nothing but farmland--a plan FDR actively was pushing for and would have been the closest we had in the pre-nuclear age to "Glass Parking Lot", and it actually took Truman to temper the Morgenthau Plan to something a bit more reasonable than "Turn the whole of Germany into a giant farm".

So yes, the precedent exists. :3

(Also, if Ahmadinnerjacket's commentary re Israel is "genocide incitement", I want every sitting member of the American Family Association (and probably the Family Research Council, to boot) sitting at trial in the Hague and arrested in the US on charges of incitement to genocide--there is actually more of an arguable case that their hate speech, and particularly the activities of the AFA-linked Scott Lively, HAVE been direct calls for genocide AND have directly incited attempted genocide (including in Eastern Europe via "Watchmen on the Walls", and particularly in Uganda where American dominionist anti-LGBT hate groups have worked with Ugandan legislators in repeated attempts to establish a legal framework explicitly permitting genocide against LGBT people). Alas, since the same hatemongers who are pulling this are the same hatemongers who effectively steeplejacked the GOP decades ago, I doubt we'll see Rmoney calling for a genocide tribunal against the AFA or FRC or Scott Lively anytime soon.)

(And yes, since at least the Rwanda genocide there is a legal framework at least internationally for charges of incitement of genocide--the propoganda broadcasts of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines have been explicitly cited in the Rwanda genocide tribunals, and the actual order to start the genocide was actually issued by RTLM.)
 
2012-10-24 01:10:50 AM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I thought bayonets were pretty much replaced by RJ45s


No, no. TL13s were replaced by the M22520. Bayonets are still useful for the early identification of candidates for 'failure to adapt' discharges before they become General Discharges, or worse.
 
2012-10-24 01:49:16 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, no. TL13s were replaced by the M22520. Bayonets are still useful for the early identification of candidates for 'failure to adapt' discharges before they become General Discharges, or worse.


How so? I haven't seen anyone fail at poking dummies with a bayonet in basic. Regardless of whether they adapted or not, it is still a simple task. I would say the gas chamber would be a better test for ability to adapt honestly.

Also, when I was in basic training they seemed to be giving most recruits the benefit of the doubt and only discharging them when it very obvious they shouldn't be there, to the point that I saw a lot more people not make it through AIT than not make it through basic.
 
2012-10-24 02:19:13 AM  

Gwyrddu: demaL-demaL-yeH: No, no. TL13s were replaced by the M22520. Bayonets are still useful for the early identification of candidates for 'failure to adapt' discharges before they become General Discharges, or worse.

How so? I haven't seen anyone fail at poking dummies with a bayonet in basic. Regardless of whether they adapted or not, it is still a simple task. I would say the gas chamber would be a better test for ability to adapt honestly.

Also, when I was in basic training they seemed to be giving most recruits the benefit of the doubt and only discharging them when it very obvious they shouldn't be there, to the point that I saw a lot more people not make it through AIT than not make it through basic.


You overthought the hell out of that.
A bayonet is the perfect device for field-expedient identification of sufferers of Congential Dumbass Disease.
 
Displayed 261 of 261 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report