In last night's presidential debate, President Obama pointed to the decreasing use of horses and bayonets in today's Army as an excuse for the size of our present Navy, which Governor Romney claimed was the same size of the USN in 1916. Since there's been a lot of argument on this board about the logic and validity of Mr. Obama's response, perhaps the president and his supporters would like to tell us why the US Army consists of over 500,000 soldiers instead of 100,000 soldiers (the number of Army personnel in 1914)? If the Navy should be no larger than it was in 1916 on account of technological advances in the Army, then why is the Army approximately five times larger than it was in 1916? What's funny and pathetic at the same time is that some people think Obama's intellectually defective "zinger" was a "win", when it was anything of the sort. http://www.newsday.com/entertainmen...ins-with-horses-and-bayonets-zinger-1.4143261
That's actually a very good point. I see no reason why the Army needs to be larger than in 1916 in order to fulfill its mission which is protecting our territorial integrity.
By your logic wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare the rise in number of personnel in the Army to the rise in number of PERSONNEL in the Navy, not number of SHIPS? Total Navy personnel, 1916: 60,376 Total Navy personnel, 2010: 324,400 http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq65-1.htm
My president, the bayonet is a stabbing instrument that is attached to the end of a modern assault rifle and is used to kill the enemy in close quarters battle.
Question... I am wondering how people are justifying that "we don't" have fewer bayonets and horses than we did in 1916? Do we actually have more?!?! When I was in the Marines (some retarded thread that was started) we were never "issued" bayonets. There is some lie going around that Marines use bayonets - we don't... I will gut you with my issued Ka-Bar though...
When was the last time US troops actually USED them in combat? Not had them on their rifles but actually used them?
The horse is pretty much obsolete in warfare but ships are not. It was a stupid thing for Obama to say but then he's a pretty stupid man relative to the position he holds.
Do you know what "need" means? Do we need a bigger navy than called for with the Obama plan? I think so. A "Navy" is a military force that controls the seas. They have ships that go below the water called submarines. They even have ships that carry aircraft. They are called aircraft carriers. Don't I come across as presidential?
Why do you think we need more ships? Right now - we probably have four ships on the water - the rest are docked and we can touch any person, in any house on this world in minutes dropping VW Bugs on their domes... So... Why do we need more? Well, why do you think we need more? Because of Al Queda's GIGANTIC Navy?
Because you clearly are an expert on Naval technology and the capabilities of our ships. You definitely know more information than the Commander in Chief or the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs do.
The Biggest Threat that we are facing that both Presidents agreed on is Al Queda... Now... Why do we need more ships?
I wish Al Queda were the only threat to the US but it isn't. Whoever controls the seas usually wins the war and to control the sea you need ships. You can get by with fewer in peacetime but that usually only temps aggressors to try something stupid.
I was never issued a bayonet... That's retarded... I was issued a Ka-Bar though... So, again - who uses bayonets?
British troops equal Americans? Since the British are our model what the US military should do, I guess the Rightwing would be fine with us having 3 light carriers and 4 divisions.
In your dreams. Why anyone would get a case of butt-hurt over Obama's fallacious logic is a mystery to me. On the other hand, why some people would consider it a "win" is profoundly less mysterious...
Ummm - no it's not... What is crazy talk about four ships touring and not stopped - docked - sitting... Do you think that all ships are on 6 month tours all year long?