Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it matters to those who have had to use bayonets. When close quarters combat is reduced to bayonets that pretty much means the situation is very bad. Obama Using bayonets as a lame zinger IMO belittles combat vets and soldiers in general. As if anyone who still uses bayonets is clueless about warfare. Spoken by a man who never wore the UNIFORM, as if he has a clue.
I think it matters to those who have had to use bayonets. When close quarters combat is reduced to bayonets that pretty much means the situation is very bad. Obama Using bayonets as a lame zinger IMO belittles combat vets and soldiers in general. As if anyone who still uses bayonets is clueless about warfare. Spoken by a man who never wore the UNIFORM, as if he has a clue.
Right..............
I'm thinking you already hated Obama, and no matter what he said, you would react to it like it was said by the antichrist.
Reality is .... when it came to foreign policy and defense policy ..... Obama owned Romney.
On foreign policy, Romney basically said he would do everything that Obama is already doing. He came up with nothing new.
On defense he just appeared uninformed. He did not seem to understand the difference between numbers and capability. He blamed Obama for something that was Congress's doing. Obama made Romney look stupid .... but Romney absolutely walked into it.
I think it matters to those who have had to use bayonets. When close quarters combat is reduced to bayonets that pretty much means the situation is very bad. Obama Using bayonets as a lame zinger IMO belittles combat vets and soldiers in general. As if anyone who still uses bayonets is clueless about warfare. Spoken by a man who never wore the UNIFORM, as if he has a clue.
I'd hope combat vets and soldiers in general are smarter than that, that they know what Obama was talking about when he responded to a rather lame "build battleships like it is 1917 again" argument by the kind of person you identify with.
You seem like a intelligent person so I would assume that you understand the difference between quantitative and qualitative which is basis for the current debate regarding the number vs the quality of warships needed by the Navy. So, let's not pretend that the argument is between a strong and a weak naval force.
I agree with that, Romney's comment about how many ships we have was a bit lacking in depth, and even you came up with a much better response then the childish condescension from our president. Obama lost a very good opportunity to make Romney look uniformed, and turned it into one of Obama's low points during the debate.
I'd hope combat vets and soldiers in general are smarter than that, that they know what Obama was talking about when he responded to a rather lame "build battleships like it is 1917 again" argument by the kind of person you identify with.
We do have an aging fleet, and we could use more logistical support ships, even technology cannot negate the need for unrep, whether it's fuel, food or parts.
But it goes back to the president's snarky, derisive way that he addressed that statement by Romney. People resort to sarcasm when they don't have anything else to offer, so I'm guessing Obama was not prepared to entertain a detailed discussion on the modernization efforts of our naval ships.
Do you think Romney will increase funding for bayonets?
No need. Obama was wrong, as usual. There are not fewer bayonets. The USMC spent $4.3 million for 120,000 bayonets, and like in the past, every Marine is trained to use them in combat. By every Marine I mean every Marine, that includes Marine cooks and clerks. Some moron poster said that bayonets were no longer used in combat, well I would like to know where they think they are being used if not in combat.
The military still uses swords as well, but they are mostly ceremonial these days.
I'd hope combat vets and soldiers in general are smarter than that, that they know what Obama was talking about when he responded to a rather lame "build battleships like it is 1917 again" argument by the kind of person you identify with.
Everyone knows what the point was. Some people here bicker over everything and embarrass themselves, much like then ones who posted hundreds of posts to argue how Obama (in the rose garden) used the word "terrible" when he should have used "horrible" (or whatever).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
