Mitt wants to know why we can't have a sweet military like in 1916

[cptjohnstone]

speaking of carriers

[JD Barleycorn]

Still looking for a vintage bayonet for my Garand.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

I don't think so. If anyone suffered a fail it would be you. The point Obama was making was that the nature of our military has changed since 1916. Yes we use horses but not as a principle means of transportation. Let me ask you this, in Operation Desert Storm what did US forces use in their assault, tanks and heavy vehicles or horses?

Obama's snarky remarks will probably cost him the election. Most people don't find sarcasm to be endearing. About the only thing Obama had going for him was likability. Now that's gone.

[Fast Gunn]

You really want our army to fight with antiques?

. . . Do you want them on horse-back too?

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Our weapons are still configured to mount bayonets on them.

[i'va biggen]

I feel hurt we never were issued a bayonet or were trained in it's usage.Never saw one the whole time ...

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

The point Obama was making was that the nature of our military has changed since 1916. Yes we use horses but not as a principle means of transportation. Let me ask you this, in Operation Desert Storm what did US forces use in their assault, tanks and heavy vehicles or horses?

Obama's point was a red herring statement designed to move this from the real issue... the adverse impact of declining number of troops and the military war machine while attempting to address current strategic problems.

Obama missed the point, Romney was on point.

Obama talked about there being carriers and submarines in an attempt to explain the decreased number of ships. What he failed to address is the fact that we have less carriers and submarines than before.

I was in the Navy before I joined the Army. I joined before the end of the Cold War, when we almost had a 600 ship Navy. That number matched the military's overall global objective that existed back then... being able to handle two major regional international wars. The idea was to be able to frustrate and stop a Warsaw Pack advance in Europe and the surrounding Oceans, as well as frustrate and stop a Chinese military offensive in Asia, should they happen at the same time.

During the 1990s, after the Soviet Union collapsed, there began a massive troop reduction. The military, all branches, suffered through a drawdown. They said many of the things back then that they're saying now to justify the coming drawdown. Reality, and what actually happened, told a conflicting story.

Unfortunately, what didn't also go down was our global commitments. Our military was stretched thin, and was constantly at a breaking point. We no longer were capable of doing our original strategic objectives... so it changed to being able to deal with two Persian Gulf War type conflicts.

We did it... but not without massive, repetitive, call up of the reserves... a call up that changed the way the reserves did business.

What people didn't see was the human factor. People weren't willing to put up with long hours, they were doing the job formerly done by two to three people. They weren't willing to put up with frequent Clinton era deployments, and the training that normally lead up to that.

Result? People left the military in droves. It got to the point that even the JCS wasn't able to paint a rosy picture. They "broke down" and told Congress what was really going on.

Now, Obama is trying to justify us using the current number of ships. With history being a guide, that's going to do us more damage than good. In the 1990s, the leadership gunned for keeping people, anybody, rather than maintaining the discipline that they had during the Cold War. Result, quality of our military started to go down.

Part of the reason we weren't able to stop Japan's initial push out towards the South China Sea and the Pacific, was that post World War I cuts bit the US military in the arse... leaving them with weapons that were close to not being a match to the Axis weapons.

Our current number of ships would be a "good idea" if we didn't have the global war on terrorism, China, and other threats facing us. Looking down the road, the current numbers that we have, in all the military branches, isn't going to be enough... not even after we draw down from Afghanistan.

Obama's lack of strategic leadership, and resolve, and his looking at his own interests rather than that of this country, has made us a paper tiger in the eyes of our enemies. They're reacting accordingly. Obama's foreign policy is making the US a joke. I liked it better when we were hated, but respected. Now, we're both hated and seen as a paper tiger.

The above is what Romney was pushing. Obama's "we have carriers and submarines" was a lame attempt to get Romney to shift to a topic that's not as hostile.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

You really want our army to fight with antiques?

. . . Do you want them on horse-back too?

Where, in any of my posts on this thread, did I say that I wanted our Army to fight with antiques, or even suggest that they all should be on horseback?

It's painfully obvious that you've never served in any of the combat arms MOSs of either the Army or the Marines. If you did, don't admit it here and embarrass yourself in the process.

Both Marines and Soldiers are entitled to have bayonets, and bayonet sheaths, as part of their CIF issue. I saw them on my CIF issue sheet. Why is this still the case? We don't have an infinite supply of rounds, and not every instance in the combat theater lends itself to firing a weapon. There's close quarters combat, and then there's hand to hand combat. Bayonet use is part of that.

Going to "fisty cuffs" with the enemy? That M4 gives you an extended reach. That reach increases by the length of the bayonet. Many of our enemies/potential enemies train and use the bayonet. Many Iraqis had AKs with a bayonet extender, with bayonet attached, that they deployed "pocket knife" style. You WANT your M4 to have a bayonet attached if you come across this situation.

Speaking of using horses... Not every environment lends itself to using our modern military equipment. The Soviets learned that the hard way. Part of the reason for our going to Iraq was to funnel the "Mujahedeen" (sp) from Afghanistan to Iraq, where we were able to bring the majority of our war machine to bear against them on Iraq's relatively flat terrain. That's also part of the reason you saw our special forces on horseback during the initial phases of the Afghanistan invasion.

By the way, Obama brought the horses and bayonets up, not Romney. Like Obama, your accompanying photo misses the mark.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by ekim008

I feel hurt we never were issued a bayonet or were trained in it's usage.Never saw one the whole time ...

If you trained with a pugil stick, you were trained in the bayonet's use. One end of the pugil stick represents the bayonet, the other end represents the butt of the rifle. I know that it's offered in Infantry OSUT.

Training with an actual bayonet runs like a karate class... weapon/bayonet movement accompanied by a scream coupled with the war face.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

By the way, Obama brought the horses and bayonets up, not Romney. Like Obama, your accompanying photo misses the mark.

Did you get that Fast Cum?

More made up shit.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by CJ7

any average idiot would ... nonetheless, a pic of Hitllerbama being funny in the ha ha sense compared to roll down the windows on a plane and the syria nonsense isnt even close to being funny ...

Oh get a sense of humor ya stuffed shirt. People might even start to like ya.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by acp5762

Oh get a sense of humor ya stuffed shirt. People might even start to like ya.

I have one ,,, I just think human error trumps man made pics when it comes to funny ..

roll the windows down on a plane eh willard?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

You really want our army to fight with antiques?

. . . Do you want them on horse-back too?

'Horse Soldier' Statue Near One World Trade Center Honors U.S. Troops Who Led Afghanistan Invasion
Posted: 10/22/2012 11:35 am EDT Updated: 10/22/2012 11:41 am EDT

A sculpture depicting a US soldier riding horseback during the invasion 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.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/horse-soldier-near-world-trade-center-afghanistan_n_2000861.html

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by acp5762

Oh get a sense of humor ya stuffed shirt. People might even start to like ya.

It hasn't worked for you.

[I B Hankering]

Staff Sgt. Bart Decker, Air Force combat controller, on horseback with Northern Alliance forces. U.S. Army photo

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Part of the reason we weren't able to stop Japan's initial push out towards the South China Sea and the Pacific, was that post World War I cuts bit the US military in the arse... leaving them with weapons that were close to not being a match to the Axis weapons.

You seem to forget the fact that the US did not become a true world power until after the end of World War II. After World War I the country was still an isolationist country. Most of the population did not want us involved in other countries issues. Plus our weapons had nothing to do with stopping Japan's push. As an isolationist country we did not get involved as we would have now. It was only after the bombing of Pearl Harbor that we had no choice. Your take on the situation is totally wrong.