Naynay and 4eyes

[Forever_frost]

Fact Check: U.S. Military Has More Bayonets Today Than In 1916

Wednesday, October 24, 2012
121022_POL_bayonet.jpg.CROP_.rectangle3-large_lightbox-550x335

From the department of picayune fact-checking: The U.S. Army has 419,155 bayonets in its inventory. The Marine Corps has about 195,334 bayonets (and has plans to acquire 175,061 more).

President Barack Obama said Monday night that the U.S. had fewer horses and bayonets than in 1916, by way of rebutting Mitt Romney’s charge that the Navy has fewer ships than any time since 1917.

http://patriotupdate.com/31515/fact-check-u-s-military-has-more-bayonets-today-than-in-1916

[4eyedwillie]

Romney's point was that our military strength has been reduced to pre-WW2 levels. We also have been reduced from an ability to fight 2 wars at once to just one. THAT was Romney's point

You want to talk about out of touch with the military? Obama's handing a pink slip to hundreds of thousands of troops (Army and Marines) AND told the DoD and Congress he would sign no budgets that did not increase the fees and copays of Tricare. He's also cut our missile defense shields, cut back our nuclear arsenal and has been trying to push treaties that would weaken us further.

You really want to discuss this?

What does the navy need more ships for? Any war we have is going to be a land war not a sea war. Plus I bet quite a few of the 60 ship difference is in either small craft or transport ships. Small craft don't make diddly squat difference in our war fighting ability. Transports other than what the marines use to base their expeditionary units on are pointless now too. In 1917 we didn't have aircraft to transport our people to the war area, now we do.

As for the not being able to fight two wars at once it seems we've been doing fairly well for the last 10 years with that many.

If we're not fighting two wars why do we need the extra troops? Isn't it a sacred republican mantra that fat needs to be trimmed in business? And that it's all about making a profit? Well get rid of some of the troops that we don't need since Iraq is basically done and same some money.
And before you bring up that the military is constitutionally mandated sure it is, but I'm sure that the force levels aren't in the constitution. As long as there's one company of troops and one ship the constitution is satisfied. Should it be that low hell no but it would be constitutional.

[Forever_frost]

why do we want to be in two wars at once?

Want to? We don't want to. Need to be able to? Oh hell yes. If we get tied up in one fight, you think our enemies won't take advantage of the fact we can't face them? Hell, China and Russia are working to turn out new ships to handle our existing fleet

[Forever_frost]

Years of piss-poor foreign policy is what mostly caused 9/11. That and failing to act on intelligence.

The neo-cons had plans of going into Iraq way before 9/11 ever occurred. They just needed an excuse.

Drink more water

[majorownage]

bush caused 9-11.. you think he was randomly reading dr. seuss to little kids that morning? that was an alibi!

Years of piss-poor foreign policy is what mostly caused 9/11. That and failing to act on intelligence.

The neo-cons had plans of going into Iraq way before 9/11 ever occurred. They just needed an excuse.

[A+]

Not at all. IT's merely an example of him being factually wrong.

There were a lot more things he was wrong about then the use of bayonets in war time

[A+]

According to history.navy.mil.org (probably a bias website) there were 342 active ships as of April 1917. As of April 2012 there are 282 active duty ships, the same amount of active ships when GWB was in office......

[naynay]

why do we want to be in two wars at once?

[Forever_frost]

Out of that whole debate, the only argument the republican side has is that we still use bayonets in war?

Not at all. IT's merely an example of him being factually wrong.

[Forever_frost]

Romney's point was that our military strength has been reduced to pre-WW2 levels. We also have been reduced from an ability to fight 2 wars at once to just one. THAT was Romney's point

You want to talk about out of touch with the military? Obama's handing a pink slip to hundreds of thousands of troops (Army and Marines) AND told the DoD and Congress he would sign no budgets that did not increase the fees and copays of Tricare. He's also cut our missile defense shields, cut back our nuclear arsenal and has been trying to push treaties that would weaken us further.

You really want to discuss this?

[4eyedwillie]

You're saying 'probably'. Show me numbers that prove Obama right

Your the one that called him a liar. It's on you to prove he is. I think that's a pretty stupid point for you to be tied up on anyway. O's point was that since 1917 the rules and conditions of war have changed and Romney bringing it up 1917 proves how out of touch he really is with the military.

[A+]

Out of that whole debate, the only argument the republican side has is that we still use bayonets in war?

[noshine4mine]

Just thought I should put this here, seems like it will stir the pot vigorously.
:O

"The Hope and The Change"

http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/409925

[naynay]

is it time for me to start the 9-11 controversy thread we so need to have?

[naynay]

Are you serious? Do you watch anything other than MSNBC? Continuing to pimp the idea that a you-tube film was the reason for the attack? For two weeks, he sent his minions out to say that the attack was not terrorism. On the anniversary of 9-11?

bush caused 9-11.. you think he was randomly reading dr. seuss to little kids that morning? that was an alibi!