Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Naynay and 4eyes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
    I know. All of the Prozac is fucking everyone up. I mean, did you hear Obama say we don't use horses or bayonets? Shit. Cav and the infantry as well as the Marines are going to be surprised as hell
    He actually said we didn't have as many not we didn't have any.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 4eyedwillie View Post
      He actually said we didn't have as many not we didn't have any.
      And he'd be wrong.


      Last night during the final presidential debate of 2012, President Obama said we have "fewer horses and bayonets" during an exchange with Governor Mitt Romney. The comments were condescending, belittling and Obama implied the use of bayonets and horses was obsolete. This is not the case. Yes, Obama said "fewer" rather than "not at all," but let's take a look at how the military uses horses and bayonets today.

      First, the Marines. The Marines have an entire page on their website dedicated to the bayonet, which is used in close combat situations.

      Photobucket

      HorseChannel.com recently published an article about how horses are used in the Army to climb rough terrain in Afghanistan.

      At Smith Lake Stables, adjacent to Fort Bragg, N.C., 36 horses are owned by the U.S. government and serve their country in two assignments. In one assignment, they act as equine ambassadors, linking the civilian public to the military. The horses are used in an annual summer camp program and in weekly day camp activities for home-schooled kids. But the horses’ most important role is their real job. They help prepare active duty personnel, particularly Army Special Forces troops, for challenges in foreign countries.

      “The first time we used our horses to train Special Forces was right after 9/11,” explains Mark Rossignol, business manager for Smith Lake Stables. Fort Bragg is home to the U.S. Army’s Special Operations Forces. “They were being sent to Afghanistan, and often the only way they can travel over there is by horse.”

      The rocky terrain found in remote areas of Afghanistan isn’t easy to traverse, even by jeep. Native horses become a mode of transportation. Pack animals, especially donkeys, also become familiar partners.

      Here is a video of the 1st Calvary riding horses in 2009.

      And finally, there is the monument in New York City right next the World Trade Center site dedicated to soldiers who rode into the war in Afghanistan on horses in 2001.

      "It was like out of the Old Testament," says Lt. Col. Max Bowers, retired Green Beret, who commanded the three horseback teams.

      "You expected Cecil B. DeMille to be filming and Charlton Heston to walk out."

      Bowers spoke while sitting in the rural Kentucky studio of sculptor Douwe Blumberg, along with three of his former "horse soldiers."

      They, along with 30 fellow commandos on horseback, are the inspiration for a new monument that Blumberg is creating, dedicated to the entire U.S. special operations community.

      The statue is scheduled to be erected across from the World Trade Center site in New York on November 11, Veterans Day. The artist rounded up these "horse soldiers" to share their personal stories and mission photos as inspiration for the 18-foot, bronze monument.

      "It was unbelievable in 2001," Master Sgt. Bart Decker says to Blumberg.

      Decker, the team's Air Force Special Operations combat controller, who is now retired, sports a Fu Manchu-style mustache. "We all looked at each other [and said] 'We're witnessing a cavalry charge!' " he said.

      One thing is clear: the use of horses and bayonets is not obsolete as President Obama implied.
      I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

      Comment


      • #33
        President Barack Obama has offended the bayonet community ... TMZ has learned.

        TMZ spoke with multiple people in the bayonet industry who tell us they were shocked and even offended when Obama brought up the weapon during last night's debate.

        FYI -- Obama was going after Romney when he said, "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."



        According to the official U.S. Marine Corps website, every Marine is STILL required to complete a bayonet training program ... because "the weapon becomes just as effective [as a rifle] in close combat situations."

        We spoke with Dan Riker from Bayonet Inc. -- a leading military surplus outlet that specializes in bayonets -- who tells us he believes Obama's comment was "ignorant ... because our soldiers still use bayonets."

        He adds, “[Bayonets] are still distributed to the military all the time -- he should get educated on it”

        For the record, Riker says he won't be voting for Obama ... "and I didn't vote for him last election either."

        I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

        Comment


        • #34
          I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

          Comment


          • #35
            President Barack Obama ended up revealing an astonishing level of ignorance about the state of military technology during the presidential debate in Boca Raton, FL Monday night.

            The U.S. Commander-in-Chief misspoke about bayonets. He misspoke about horses. He misspoke about the size of the U.S. Navy. He misspoke about the makeup of the Navy. And the whole time, he thought he was teaching his opponent Mitt Romney a lesson.

            Obama mocked Gov. Romney's concerns about the diminished number of ships in the U.S. Navy by saying, "I think Gov. Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time studying how our military works."

            Obama continued, trying his best to make the GOP challenger look foolish: "[Romney] mentioned that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well... we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines." Obama added that it's not about "counting ships," it's about "our capabilities."

            These comments rang out with a snarky condescension that was only surpassed by their complete lack of factual support.

            While the Army discontinued traditional bayonet training in 2010, the USMC still trains Marines with bayonets and issues them as standard equipment. The Army has also begun training soldiers in a different style of bayonet use--not affixed to the end of a rifle but as a secondary melee weapon.

            To make bayonet training relevant again, the Army got rid of the bayonet assault course, in which soldiers fixed a bayonet to the end of a rifle, ran towards a target while yelling and then rammed the bayonet into the target center. Instead, soldiers learn in combatives training how to use a knife or bayonet if someone grabs their primary weapon.

            Some users on Twitter have claimed that, by virtue of the USMC still using bayonets, there actually are more bayonets in use than 1916, when the army had between 100,000 and 140,000 enlisted members. As of 2010, the Corps boasted 203,000 active duty members and 40,000 reserve marines.

            Regarding horses, a statue of a member of the U.S. Special Forces on horseback was just unveiled at Ground Zero in New York City. When our Special Forces invaded Afghanistan post-9/11, many did so on horseback. I personally remember sitting for a lecture in Austin, TX in 2005, given by a member of one of the first Special Forces teams to arrive in Afghanistan. He talked at length about their reliance upon horses.

            As to the size of the Navy, Romney's remarks about fleet size were centered around a concern that U.S. naval forces would in the near future be unable to operate in multiple regions of the globe simultaneously. While Obama dismissed this out of hand, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mark Ferguson reached a similar evaluation months before the debate:

            “Our role is really about the flexibility of forces, that they can move to various regions, both in this region in the Gulf and outside the Gulf... Should sequestration be enacted, the Navy would not be able to support the current national defense strategy and it would cause a reduction in the size of the fleet to the point that we would have to relook at the strategy,” Ferguson said. The Navy “would be reduced both in size and in its presence around the globe.”

            Even at the beginning of Obama's term as President, the Navy had a goal of producing a 313-ship fleet by 2013. It wasn't until 2012, after three years of unfulfilled promises of economic recovery, that the target was abandoned. What happened between 2009 and 2012 that made the Obama administration decide that it could downgrade the size of the U.S. Navy further yet maintain its ability to operate in multiple arenas simultaneously?

            Lastly, and most succinctly, submarines are boats, not ships. Obama got this one wrong as well.

            Perhaps President Obama "maybe hasn't spent enough time studying how our military works"?

            I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by 4eyedwillie View Post
              Better life thru science? I hear ya

              And for what it's worth I never really take it seriously. Your a good guy frost
              i actually love your posts outside of this forum.

              you are the only reason i get fired up in here, bc i know you have nothing better to do with your days!

              and like willie says, i really dont take it too seriously. I am locked in austin for 7-days a week for the next few months.. bills gotta get paid, so it looks like i wont get to vote at preceinct 3

              i'll just sit back and watch how it all unfolds
              THE BAD HOMBRE

              Comment


              • #37
                Barry's thinking only "corpsmen" need bayonets.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Vertnut View Post
                  Barry's thinking only "corpsmen" need bayonets.
                  Them and Medal of Honor 'winners.'
                  I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    You realize that what you posted was equivalent to going liar liar pants on fire don't you? Find a inventory of the number bayonets owned in 1917 and the number owned now and compare them. Posting the number of people that are enlisted is meaningless. I would bet that the number of effective combat troops in 1917 was actually higher than now. REMF's typically don't carry bayonets, that would be a combat only item. Also from reading the article I get the impression that the newer ones are more knife's than traditional bayonets. I maybe wrong, do the newest ones still attach to the rifle?

                    On the subject of horses I counted 36 at one place, some ceremonial units, and some in Afghanistan. That number wasn't reported but I would think 300 would be high. Again no way for me to know for sure. But you do realize that in 1917 we still had Calvary units? And that they were still using horses to move artillery?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 4eyedwillie View Post
                      You realize that what you posted was equivalent to going liar liar pants on fire don't you? Find a inventory of the number bayonets owned in 1917 and the number owned now and compare them. Posting the number of people that are enlisted is meaningless. I would bet that the number of effective combat troops in 1917 was actually higher than now. REMF's typically don't carry bayonets, that would be a combat only item. Also from reading the article I get the impression that the newer ones are more knife's than traditional bayonets. I maybe wrong, do the newest ones still attach to the rifle?

                      On the subject of horses I counted 36 at one place, some ceremonial units, and some in Afghanistan. That number wasn't reported but I would think 300 would be high. Again no way for me to know for sure. But you do realize that in 1917 we still had Calvary units? And that they were still using horses to move artillery?
                      I'd like to know how you can support a man that continues to lie and cover up this Libya debacle? We now have proof that he knew within 2 hours what happened, and even knew who claimed responsibility. Two weeks of straight-up lying to the American people. Do you have no moral compass at all? How is he buying your vote? Surely you must be getting something out of it. At least I hope so.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Vertnut View Post
                        I'd like to know how you can support a man that continues to lie and cover up this Libya debacle? We now have proof that he knew within 2 hours what happened, and even knew who claimed responsibility. Two weeks of straight-up lying to the American people. Do you have no moral compass at all? How is he buying your vote? Surely you must be getting something out of it. At least I hope so.
                        I'd like to know how you can support a party that thinks rape is gods plan and that a woman can't get pregnant from being raped? There have been so many different republicans that state similar views that it HAS to the party line. Hell even your VP believes it. He said no abortion under any circumstances in the VP debate.
                        But as for me Republicans are the party of Bush. I will NEVER support the party that brought us that imbecile.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 4eyedwillie View Post
                          I'd like to know how you can support a party that thinks rape is gods plan and that a woman can't get pregnant from being raped? There have been so many different republicans that state similar views that it HAS to the party line. Hell even your VP believes it. He said no abortion under any circumstances in the VP debate.
                          But as for me Republicans are the party of Bush. I will NEVER support the party that brought us that imbecile.
                          Nice dodge.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Vertnut View Post
                            Nice dodge.
                            Dodge how? I answered your question.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 4eyedwillie View Post
                              Dodge how? I answered your question.
                              No, you didn't. I'm not talking about abortion, rape, etc. I asked what you get out of it. I can see that you and your messiah think alike. I can see you are of the same character by your posts'. Just like him, you deflect to Bush? That shit is old.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Vertnut View Post
                                No, you didn't. I'm not talking about abortion, rape, etc. I asked what you get out of it. I can see that you and your messiah think alike. I can see you are of the same character by your posts'. Just like him, you deflect to Bush? That shit is old.
                                You don't pay attention do you? He's not my messiah I just have no other viable alternative. I will NEVER support the party that brought us Bush. That's all the reason I need. PERIOD!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X