Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

In Defense of Bayonets and Horses...


RodandStaff
 Share

Recommended Posts

IN DEFENSE OF BAYONETS & HORSES! 5 PROBLEMS WITH THE PRESIDENT’S ZINGER LAST NIGHT

  • Last night, one of the most searched terms according to Yahoo was “horses and bayonets.” That’s because President Obama used the phrase to bash Mitt Romney’s attack concerning the depleted state and shrinking American military might. Obama said:

“Governor, 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 underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships. It’s — it’s what are our capabilities.”

So is the “horses and bayonets” line true? We decided to do a quick fact check. And unfortunately for the president, here’s what we found:

1. THERE ARE BIG PLANS TO CUT THE MILITARY BUDGET, INCLUDING CUTS TO THE NAVY — AND THE NUMBER OF NAVY SHIPS HAS BEEN DECLINING

US-Navy-Lincoln-Battlegroup1-620x414.jpg
Photo Credit: US Navy

According to Politifact [emphasis added]:

In January 2010, Heritage published a report titled, “
.” Citing data from the Naval History and Heritage Command, a part of the Defense Department, the report said that “the U.S. Navy’s fleet today contains the smallest number of ships since 1916. The total number of active ships in the Navy declined from 592 to 283 between 1989 and 2009.”

We looked up the
, and the Heritage report
does reflect the trend line correctly (though Romney said 1917 rather than 1916, something we won’t quibble with). In 1916, the U.S. Navy had 245 active ships, a number that eventually peaked during World War II, then fell, then peaked again more modestly during the Korean War, followed by a slow, consistent decline over the next five decades.

In recent years, the number of active ships has fallen low enough to approach its 1916 level. In both 2009 (the most recent year of the Heritage report) and 2011, the number was 285.

So Romney has a point. However, even using this metric — which, as we’ll argue later, is an imperfect one for measuring military strength — this is not the lowest level since 1916.

The Navy’s budget for FY2013 does
:

• Overall Battle Force Ships continue to decrease to 284 in FY13. These changes will result in a Navy fleet size of more than 280 ships by the end of the FYDP.

• Aircraft procurement funds 192 airframes in FY13 and 765 airframes across the FYDP. Decreased aviation quantities for: F-35 B/C, C-40A, KC-130J, P-8A,MV-22B, MH-60R, and E-2D.

In addition, if
take place at the end of the year, the military will be affected.

The
released in 2008, is an operating guideline the Navy produced to stay competitive around the world. The plan highlights the outdated state of the American Navy and eventually calls for a 10% increase in the number of ships in the American fleet.

123.png

2. BAYONET & KNIFE COMBAT TRAINING IS ON THE RISE; WE COULD BE USING MORE BAYONETS NOW THAN IN 1916
121022_POL_bayonet1.jpg.CROP_.rectangle3-large1.jpg
Photo Credit: wordsmith.org

To make bayonet training
, 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 as a secondary weapon.

bayonet_large1-562x620.jpg
Photo Credit: wordsmith.org

The United States Marine Corps, however, still trains every Marine with traditional bayonets and issues them as
. Special Forces also have intensive training with knives and bayonets as tactical weapons. As the size of these forces using bayonets have grown,
that there are more bayonets in use now than in 1916.

british-iraq-bayonet.jpg
Photo Credit: wordsmith.org

3. THE USE OF HORSES IS ON THE RISE AND STATUES ARE BEING ERECTED IN THEIR HONOR

special-forces-horse-hr-620x375.jpg
Photo Credit: americanspecialops.com

“The first time we used our horses to train Special Forces was right after 9/11,”
, 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.”

Additionally, a sculpture depicting a
of Afghanistan was unveiled near its new home on Friday near One World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan. The 16-foot-tall bronze statue, titled “De Opresso Liber,” depicts a Special Operations soldier in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, and commemorates the first time US troops used horses in combat since 1942.

horse_soldier_statue-405x620.jpg
Photo Credit: AP

4. HORSES ARE ALSO USED FOR STATE AND MILITARY FUNERALS

helms-funeral03.jpg
Photo Credit: Getty Images

5. WE NO LONGER TECHNICALLY USE “BATTLESHIPS”

85053791-620x506.jpg
Photo Credit: US Naval Corps

“The
on active duty was
(BB 63) decommissioned Mar. 31, 1992. In the 21st century, there are no battleships in the United States Navy.”

Link:
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

R&S - when one reads Revelation (book of), the inflitration and attack on Israel will not come by air or sea or or or, but across country on horseback. Interesting, huh! Kudos to you for your report and many pluses for you.

I was just reading a book by Joel Rosenberg titled "The Ezekiel Option" where that interesting point came out. One interesting historic fact is that when Hitler tried to attack Russia his machines bogged down in the cold and snow. The Russian army, many on mount, however were able to navigate through terrain that other machines couldn't. That still holds true today, that and they are quieter doing it. Russia still has one of the largest mounted military in the world... horses are not as obsolete as the President made them sound. wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS WAS BY FAR THE DUMBEST POST I'VE SEEN HERE ON DV!!!

How ridiculous was it that a)someone felt the need to 'fact check' a statement that is UNDISPUTEDLY true and B) that anyone would even post/agree that this was a legitimate counter

"Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets (FACT) because the nature of our military’s changed (FACT). We have these things called aircraft carriers (FACT) where planes land on them (FACT). We have these ships that go underwater(FACT), nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships(FACT). It’s — it’s what are our capabilities"(FACT)

What was there to even research and argue?!?!

I was just reading a book by Joel Rosenberg titled "The Ezekiel Option" where that interesting point came out. One interesting historic fact is that when Hitler tried to attack Russia his machines bogged down in the cold and snow. The Russian army, many on mount, however were able to navigate through terrain that other machines couldn't. That still holds true today, that and they are quieter doing it. Russia still has one of the largest mounted military in the world... horses are not as obsolete as the President made them sound. wink.gif

HORSES and BAYONETS vs DRONES?!?!?! Trust me, horses are obselete in todays war games buddy!

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

th_smiley_two_thumbs_up.gif OrDinarE

I was wondering the same thing... WHY? Why Try To Argue This? Distraction at Best...

Hey Maggs! :D

With so many more important issues to be discussed....

I sincerely hope Rod copied and pasted this....really respected, tho rarely agreed, with his opinions until he posted this....

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Maggs! :D

With so many more important issues to be discussed....

I sincerely hope Rod copied and pasted this....really respected, tho rarely agreed, with his opinions until he posted this....

It's from theBlaze - the link at the bottom gave it away.

What other important issues? Big Bird? Binders?

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always respected Rod as well and he's so dang lovable smile.gif

That is why I was surprised by this. unsure.gif I guess our passion overules our thinking sometimes... I have been guilty of the same.

Hope you'll forgive me Rod... mellow.gif I still hold a lot of respect for you as a good person.

Maggie

Edited by Maggie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's from theBlaze - the link at the bottom gave it away.

What other important issues? Big Bird? Binders?

And my apologies, Rod, for missing the link at the bottom, it was one of many in the post that I didn't even care to click on....Good catch dhr :blink: (not really)

Edited by OrDinarE
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always respected Rod as well and he's so dang lovable smile.gif

That is why I was surprised by this. unsure.gif I guess our passion overules our thinking sometimes... I have been guilty of the same.

Hope you'll forgive me Rod... mellow.gif I still hold a lot of respect for you as a good person.

Maggie

Hi Mag, looks like the norm to me.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how refuting the presiden't claims makes a person less 'good.' The "shame on you - I thought you were better than this" attitude is quite ridiculous.

And if the left wants to talk about real issues, that would be a sudden change of course. Don't take it from me, listen to Obama's stump speeches.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think Obama was talking down to Romney when he said that we have submarines and aircraft carriers now; I think he was just informing his followers, they’re not the brightest candles on the cake.

Remember how the Big Bird reference upset them?

Edited by jonjon
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Shaming... please don't try to spin and twist my intention, dhr.

Trying to point out this is a non-issue compared to so many other important ones.

That's All rolleyes.gif

No spinning on my end, and you're not the only one I was addressing.

But self-deprecation doesn't change the tone of this thread. Anyone can feel free to discredit Rod's post with fact or conjecture (the majority of the responses in this thread), but it's pretty underhanded to say "I really respect you" and follow up with "we're better than this."

Just an observation.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No spinning on my end, and you're not the only one I was addressing.

But self-deprecation doesn't change the tone of this thread. Anyone can feel free to discredit Rod's post with fact or conjecture (the majority of the responses in this thread), but it's pretty underhanded to say "I really respect you" and follow up with "we're better than this."

Just an observation.

:)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Shaming... please don't try to spin and twist my intention, dhr.

Trying to point out this is a non-issue compared to so many other important ones.

That's All rolleyes.gif

Couple of these guys trying to stir an argument. Let's argue over something with more substance.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No spinning on my end, and you're not the only one I was addressing.

But self-deprecation doesn't change the tone of this thread. Anyone can feel free to discredit Rod's post with fact or conjecture (the majority of the responses in this thread), but it's pretty underhanded to say "I really respect you" and follow up with "we're better than this."

Just an observation.

Noted... Thank You For Your Observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OrDinarE, gee thanks for callling me stupid because I found R&S post interesting - we're all entitled to our own opinion. Just becuz mine doesn't agree with yours or the rest on here in this thread - and believe me there are some real doozies given (opinions) that aren't remotely based on fact - having read Revelation and studied how Armageddon is likely going to happen, I found his references interesting. And I didn't neg you or Maggie for having your opinions that differ from what R&S looked up or what I've studied.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how refuting the presiden't claims makes a person less 'good.' The "shame on you - I thought you were better than this" attitude is quite ridiculous.

And if the left wants to talk about real issues, that would be a sudden change of course. Don't take it from me, listen to Obama's stump speeches.

dhr -So the point is very clear to you....THERE IS/WAS NOTHING TO REFUTE!!!!! is the whole point.

See below:

"Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets (FACT) because the nature of our military’s changed (FACT). We have these things called aircraft carriers (FACT) where planes land on them (FACT). We have these ships that go underwater(FACT), nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships(FACT). It’s — it’s what are our capabilities"(FACT)"

If you can LEGITIMATELY disprove any one of those statements then I will concede....until then....

OrDinarE, gee thanks for callling me stupid because I found R&S post interesting - we're all entitled to our own opinion. Just becuz mine doesn't agree with yours or the rest on here in this thread - and believe me there are some real doozies given (opinions) that aren't remotely based on fact - having read Revelation and studied how Armageddon is likely going to happen, I found his references interesting. And I didn't neg you or Maggie for having your opinions that differ from what R&S looked up or what I've studied.

I didn't call you stupid Sage...just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OrDinarE, if the comment had been directed at you, how would you have taken it - just askin?

Apologies if sound crabby, just sayin I didn't like the harassment of R&S when he took a statement made - regardless of side, that didn't sound right to him and did some investigation. Guess I think too many people take too much stuff at face value and apparently I've become pretty tainted.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OrDinarE, if the comment had been directed at you, how would you have taken it - just askin?

Apologies if sound crabby, just sayin I didn't like the harassment of R&S when he took a statement made - regardless of side, that didn't sound right to him and did some investigation. Guess I think too many people take too much stuff at face value and apparently I've become pretty tainted.

after re-reading I can definitely see where you're coming from (perspective is crazy like that, can change your whole view). Please padon my wording and tone, as it seems may have hurt the point i was trying to make.

Still didn't call you stupid. ;)

Edited by OrDinarE
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.