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  
•       •       •

10639 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Oct 2012 at 11:10 AM (1 year 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 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.
 
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 »






Report