In response to:

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

westriversd Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 12:01 PM
I really don't know and neither do you unless you are a naval warfare historian and expert on naval warfare. So, if you are not then you should zip it.
Rick676 Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 12:18 PM
According to the Naval experts I have heard, the Navy is at the limit of being able to meet all it's missions. The deployments are getting longer and longer to the point that suicide is becoming a major issue. We don't have to go back to the Navy of WWII, but a naval force of around 400 - 450 ships would be efficient and flexible. The President neglected the fact that aircraft carriers are not solo ships, they travel as a force with cruisers, frigates, destroyers, supply, submarines, and other ships as a Carrier Task Force.
Jack2894 Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 12:13 PM
Are you out of your mind? You think there is some question as to whether the 800 ship navy of 1918 would be destroyed by the modern Navy? I thought consevatives were deranged before I read this I feel like I was being too generous in my assessment.

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...