(Hat tip Monkey in the Middle)
"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916,” Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
Really?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/bayonets-still-standard-issue-despite-obama-debate-jab/
I can't speak for 1916, but I do know that as recently as 1966 (when I went through basic training) we did get bayonet drills (frightful little devils). I am quite relieved to know that they still use them since they would come in handy during those house to house battles that seem to be common in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
But what would Obama know about what they use in the military? Maybe bayonets will be the next thing he cuts out of the military's budget.
7 comments:
Guess what Gary. The Marines still use Bayonets. And they use horses and mules too. Horses and mules can get to places in Afghanistan better than mechanized vehicles.
Findalis,
You are right about the horses and bayonets, as they are still used in the armed forces. I wonder how Obama, the "community organizer" learned all about the military when he failed to get to over half his morning briefings. Obama did mention submarines as part of modern warfare, but failed to mention that Russia now has three operational "Red October" style, pulse jet, silent subs with one in the ship yards. In my opinion, this type of Russian sub was parked in the Gulf of Mexico last spring, for two weeks before the U.S Navy discovered it. They were probably doing intercontinental missile drills, while listening to our "Rap" music. So why is Obama cutting the Navy request for more subs and ships?
Squid
Somehow, I think that the point is missed.
But yeah, that was the biggest gaffe, not the bit about Syria being Iran's "route to the sea".
@ Squid
The military is being cut because like all liberal bleeding hearts Obama will not be happy until the US has no military and no means of defense.
"The military is being cut because like all liberal bleeding hearts Obama will not be happy until the US has no military and no means of defense."
Findalis, do you really believe this? I often disagree with conservatives, but I do believe that the vast majority have good intentions and want to do what's right for this country. Do you really think that Obama wants a completely defenseless country? The same guy who's sending the drone attacks?
Our military is the largest and most powerful in the world. We could scale it back considerably and that would still be true.
But the idea that Obama wants a defenseless country is ridiculous, and I really hope that you're just exaggerating to make a point.
Yes Anonymous 703 I do believe that Obama would be happy without an strong military. Otherwise he would have been working to eliminate the sequestration (Another sesquipedalian word for children to learn.) from happening.
If given a second term Obama will do anything to spend money on welfare and ignore the military.
But the point remains, how many hulls are in the water compared to 1916 is not a valid measurement. What kind of ships we use now, what capacities they have, what functions they serve, are what is important. Mittens made an ignorant, desperate remark, and the president called him on it. We still use ships, we still use bayonets, but bayonets are indeed not as crucial to modern tactics. We use drones, instead of sending soldiers climbing mountains to engage in hand to hand combat.
We're going to be spending less money on the military because we have a $16 trillion debt. We can't balance the budget without cutting spending, can we? We can't afford such huge spending tabs.
Post a Comment