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  
•       •       •

10643 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 261 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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