In response to:

Actually, U.S. Military Still Uses Lots of Horses and Bayonets

sperry482 Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 6:02 PM
Exact Romney quote from the debate: "Our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917" Doesn't this guys know that ONE OF TODAYS SUBS IS STRONGER THAN OUR ENTIRE WORLD WAR 1 ERA FLEET. And this guy wants to be COMMANDER IN CHIEF???
Bigdogoffthechain Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 8:28 PM
fewer ships means lesser capability. liberal idiots like you, who have never done anything more dangerous than change the cable channel, fail to understand these things and make the same mistake over and over and over: you cut the military so you can spend the money on deadbeats. Then you're STUNNED when we are attacked because we appear weak.
wsmith-84 Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 9:13 PM
Good one, Bigdog, I completely forgot that the 9/11 attack, the Cole attack, the African embassy attacks and the Lebanon Marine barrack bombing were all because "we appear weak" from cutting our military budget to "spend the money on deadbeats".

"Liberal idiots" indeed...

jwalsh Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 2:27 PM
The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon was successful because of dumb @ss rules of engagement. The marines had .50 cal machine guns but the belts were not in them. The .50’s could have stopped the truck cold. The Cole attack was the same kind of thing. The sailors couldn't open fire on boats because of the rules and a proper security perimeter was not maintained. The Cole was there for very poor reasons… It did not need to be there but politics dictated that it should resupply there. A lot of good sailors and marines died because of dumb @ss rules of engagement.
You have no idea about life at sea or what naval power is about. Maintaining an open navigation on the oceans is absolutely critical to maintaining free trade.
Mark in CA Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 6:21 PM
It's relative. Of course our ships are more potent vessels of war than ships in 1917. But then so are the military vessels of our enemies and potential enemies. And since we ought to maintain a high level of readiness to respond to multi global threats, I agree we ought to maintain an adequate number of ships. Anyway, a nuclear sub may not the right tool for a particular job.

Look, don't follow your Messiah's lead and try to twist Romney's words or portray him as an idiot. You don't even believe your own post.
sperry482 Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 6:50 PM
Romney was trying to act like a Liberal last night. How did you feel about that?
Mark in CA Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 8:00 PM
I feel just fine, thank you.

Last night during the final presidential debate of 2012, President Obama said we have "fewer horses and bayonets" during an exchange with Governor Mitt Romney. The comments were condescending, belittling and Obama implied the use of bayonets and horses was obsolete. This is not the case. Yes, Obama said "fewer" rather than "not at all," but let's take a look at how the military uses horses and bayonets today.

First, the Marines. The Marines have an entire page on their website dedicated to the bayonet, which is used in...