Posted on 10/23/2012 7:31:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
What was really ridiculous about his rude zinger. Romney was specifically talking about the number of ships, and obama talked about how we now have submarines and aircraft carriers. Those are ships, and we need them. obama confirmed their usefulness in this exchange. So in 1916 we had submarines (not nuclear ones), and battleships. The battleships were replaced with aircraft carriers, and the role of submarines expanded substainlly since 1916 to include Ballistic Missiles.
In short. obama basically said, we don’t need has many ships as we did in 1916, because we have these ships now. Makes no logical sense.
Thanks for the unicorn pic. Hilarious and so true.
A more appropriate headline would be “Our commander and chief wrong again”.
It’s Fringe Benefits not French Benefits.
I don’t know much about guns, but some guy just called into a local radio program and said when Obama was talking about banning AK’s he said something like “we need to keep those in the hands of our military only”.
Well, this guy said they were commie developed and later made in China. Our US military doesn’t use AK’s.
So, so much for Obozo’s military brilliance.
“I think Gov. Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time studying how our military works.”
“Projection of his own inadequacies, as a typical Democrat. Knowledge about the military to them is always some form of book learning, at best.”
This is coming from the same idiot who oversaw the DNC convention which had actual Soviet Ships as a backdrop for their Veteran tribute. They have no credibility about what the military currently operates or needs.
That unicorn picture cracks me up!
***”We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them.****
Gee, I always wondered what an Aircraft carrier was for!
*** We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines.”***
WOW! I didn’t know that! Glad we have a Dem candidate who knows his military!
Sarc/Off
CC
What “was” the spirit of the bayonet?
America to Obummer: SHIP OUT!@
zer0 was talking about the “Civilian Army”, the one that “needs to be as large as the Military.”
He also missed something else that's very important. The fact is that if you have 8 aircraft carriers, just how many are mission capable at any time. Aircraft carriers rely on their aircraft as weapons. How many aircraft are mission capable at any time. Obama doesn't seem to realize that there's such a thing as maintenance, which takes these ships and aircraft out of service, sometimes for extended periods of time. The fewer of these ships there are, the fewer missions they can complete.
And these carriers are also used to project power around the world, meaning that you have to split up the carrier task forces around the world.
Obama's view on the military seems to be right out of first person shooter games.
Mark
Kami memiliki hal-hal yang disebut kapal induk di mana pesawat mendarat pada mereka. Kami memiliki kapal-kapal yang pergi di bawah air, kapal selam nuklir. “
We have [”we own”] these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines.”
It appears to be something a 5th grader foreigner from Indonesia who has never been exposed to anything nautically military would say in trying to explain what a navy is. But it slipped because apparently he reverted to Bhasa phraseology.
No American would talk like this - shows he has no American roots. Obummer`s a foreigner plant.
ask him about the clubs in his golf bag, he knows every groove and shaft like his own son .. if he had one.
OK Mr. President if it’s about capabilities, what is a SLOC? You don’t know, maybe you should study up on how the military works. Anybody that is engaged in world wide commerce and shipping know what a SLOC is. Without them there would be a lot of chaos and expensive goods and dead people popping up. The US Navy mission is to keep the SLOCs safe and navigable. More ships, the Navy says at least 313 are required to do their mission. So Mr. President how do you keep the Sea Lines of Communication open and free by cutting down the number of ships the Navy needs to patrol them?
Good points all.
Damned right. Also, the fewer ships that we have, the faster our capabilities get degraded if a few are put out of action (which is pretty much a guarantee when you're fighting even a reasonably capable enemy).
Fewer and more capable platforms are great for efficiency, but all that matters in a battle is EFFECTIVENESS. The Soviets/Russians have, since WW2, had a penchant for retaining ALL of their old equipment, other than the "monkey models" sold to their less-than-reliable client states. The theory behind that is based on their experiences fighting the Germans - you can have titanic battles with modern equipment, but they are limited in number. Once the modern equipment on both sides has pretty much knocked out each other, the side that still has plenty of "obsolete" technology will win - because the Mark I Homo Sapiens Sapiens cannot stand up to an old tank with just a rifle and some grenades any better than his father or grandfather could. As the Russians love to say, "Quantity has a quality all its own."
Bathhouse Barry doesn't understand this, and never will - because he doesn't give a damn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.