Incendiary Image of the Day: Petard Hoisting Edition

It seems the CINC’s poorly conceived and ill-informed “gotcha moment” from the third debate has only resulted in the Prez being skewered with his own bayonet. Problem with that?


  1. avatar jwm says:

    No, no problem at all.

  2. avatar Tim says:

    Skewering the Prez because of the “Horses and Bayonets” comment? Hardly.

    Please, you are going to have to find a different nit to pick than this one. Obama slammed his point home when he made this comment. He made Romney look like an idiot, and he was right in his statement. However I have to say his Battleship reference was way better than the horses and bayonets.

    1. avatar JPD says:

      Agreed Tim. Nit picky. Where is the commentary on how stupid Mitt sounded. Opened his mouth and proved he has no clue about the military. Sheesh,………. what wonderful choices i have in two weeks.

    2. avatar Merits says:

      It’s only a nit because there is so much other low-hanging fruit on which to feast should one so choose. His comment was petty, small, unpresidential, condescending, and foolish, besides being wrong. Only someone who believed what he said was truth and enjoyed the attitude with which it was given would think it made Romney look like an idiot. See below if you’re interested in a more detailed exposition.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Condescending barely begins to describe it.

      2. Except Battleships ARE outdated. Just like Dreadnaughts. We have smaller, cheaper, and more effective missile destroyers now. In addition the the ridiculous combined firepower of an Aircraft Carrier.

        Just think, the last class of battleship we had was the Iowa class battleship, but we did not use those to take out the Yamato, we just used planes.

        And now we have computer guided kamikazes, cruise missiles. Battleships are unfortunately not needed in today’s world.

        1. avatar WLCE says:

          No they’e not. Battleships are just as relevant now as they were during both World Wars.

          Except now we have new technologies that can make them even more decisive in america’s strength projection worldwide. Rocket assisted munitions, sophisticated radar and sensors, not to mention propulsion systems.

          Battleships, if you studied the history right, were insanely difficult to kill, with recorded historical kills resulting in crews being caught hopelessly off guard (like pearl harbor) or a lucky shot. Aircraft carriers? They sustained far heavier losses. They are, by no means, a “replacement” for a heavily armored ship equipped with large guns.

          In what way are they obsolete?

        2. avatar Other Derek says:

          Unless our Marines have to make an amphib landing. There is no better cover fire in the world than a 16″ gun for that purpose.

        3. avatar surlycmd says:

          @WLCE: Simply not as useful as a Carrier. The Battle of Coral Sea proved it. Carriers will standoff hundreds of miles and overwhelm other ships with her planes. Battleships were designed to go toe to toe with other ships of the line. Not revlevant today. A Battleship would have to be nuke to be fuel efficient and the Navy already determined nuke surface combatants to be non practical. Finally, a Battleship would never survive an encounter with a Submarine. An ADCAP or similiarly capaple torpedo would break her keel and send her to the bottom.

          A Battleship is not worth the money.

        4. avatar WLCE says:

          “@WLCE: Simply not as useful as a Carrier.”

          it depends on what you define as “useful”. For launching aircraft for electronic warfare and early warning, as well as providing precision bombing with aircraft and air superiority (theoretically, since the F35 is a f–king joke and the Superhornet can be outmatched by the Sukhois), then the carrier has its advantages.

          For defeating other naval vessels, shelling targets on land from a extreme distance (even longer if you equate rocket assisted munitions and conceptualized fire control systems, and sheer force projection at sea, no vessel can substitute a battleship. None. No high tech, rube goldberg destroyers or multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers.

          “The Battle of Coral Sea proved it.”

          The battle of Coral Sea did NOT prove that battleships were “not as useful” as carriers. It was carrier-on-carrier combat, so comparing with a battleship is a fallacy of false cause, or what i like to call, a non sequitur.

          please describe how you think so. In fact read about the Battle off Samar; it proved how a carrier group can get absolutely spanked when it goes toe to toe with battleships, which was where i was getting at to begin with. Thats not even bringing up the Atlantic.

          “Carriers will standoff hundreds of miles and overwhelm other ships with her planes. ”

          You havent seen new developments in anti-air technology have you? Not that what you mentioned is a good argument anyways, since it is attacking a strawman: never did I imply that carriers were absolutely useless. They have their role. Completely replacing battleships is not one of those roles, nor is it even feasible.

          “Battleships were designed to go toe to toe with other ships of the line.”

          so what?…and they are invaluable for providing fire support to amphibious landings and inland bombardment. This possibility is extended even more with digitalization and rocket assisted munitions. The later is now absolutely critical for US force projection, especially with a situation like the Straights of Hormuz (which will induce a facepalm reaction with the navy because they will want battleships when shots are fired over there)

          “Not revlevant today.”

          On the contrary. very relevant.

          “A Battleship would have to be nuke to be fuel efficient and the Navy already determined nuke surface combatants to be non practical. Finally, a Battleship would never survive an encounter with a Submarine. An ADCAP or similiarly capaple torpedo would break her keel and send her to the bottom.”

          You do realize that the last time submarines were measurably effective against battleships was during world war I right? only two were lost in World War II by submarines. amazing.

          For every technology leap that exists and takes place with other naval vessels, the same can be applied to battleships. They are not the exception to the rule (assuming countries keep them instead of scrapping them).

          again, you need to read the link i provided

          “A Battleship is not worth the money.”

          When Navy is getting f–ked with in the Persian Gulf by a truly formidable enemy, then well see if there worth the money or not. Or when China’s anti-carrier missiles need handled and…there’s no capability to engage those missile systems.

        5. avatar JAS says:

          To the disgust and dismay of the Navy, Battleships became obsolete in 22 minutes on July 21, 1921 at the hands of Billy Mitchell.


    3. avatar sanchanim says:

      Actually Obama was quite wrong in the reference, but right in the idea.
      To that end the cartoon above is also very telling. When Obama had stated all fighting units were out of Iraq, it didn’t mean there were no Americans.
      In fact we still had a large contingent of security forces there. They had all their 50 Cal guns removed from their jeeps so Obama could say technically all fighting forces had been removed, even though it was a total lie.
      We still have men on the ground, in harms way, but now left to small light arms as their only protection. Nice huh….

    4. avatar percynjpn says:

      “he was right in his statement”

      Huh? So like our clueless president, you’re not aware that our ground troops still carry, train and use bayonets? Peas in a pod, I guess

  3. avatar Paul says:

    None what-so-ever. I wish he would fall on his bayonet.

    1. avatar SkyMan77 says:

      If I may…. think he is Paul… We’ll see on the 7th but I’d put money on current POTUS being out of a job in January….

  4. avatar island4diver says:

    Not as screwed as Mitt implying that a C-47= a C-5 or not realizing one F-15 with a bomb can do the same damage, and hit the target, that once took a squadron of B-24s. His “Air Force is smaller than it was in 1947.”

    1. avatar Tim says:


      One B2 bomber has more effectiveness than the entire 8th Air Force did in WWII.

      Whoever prepped Romney on his talking points in regards to defense should be fired for feeding him arguments like “our air force has fewer planes than in 1942” or whatever the hell his statement was.

  5. avatar surlycmd says:


    I have a problem with his condescending attitude while friends of mine are doing 9 and 11 month deployments on undermanned and barely maintained ships with marginally qualified crews.

    The problems with the Navy began long before BHO was elected. His tone and reply demonstrates his ignorance of the job requirements and resources of the Navy.

  6. avatar Accur81 says:

    War is young men dying, and old men talking.

    I don’t think either candidate has much perspective on war.

    I’ll be voting on the basis of the budget, development of energy, and 2A rights. That sure won’t be a vote for Obama. Any way you slice it, this is going to be a damn tight race.

    1. avatar JPD says:

      Uhmmm, interesting. Budget? Since when has Mitt proposed any plans whatsoever.Oh yeah, few pie in the sky comments. Check out his record in Mass. during his term in office. Not a glowing result.

      2A? PLEASE!! How about his AWB in Mass. Here is the quote:

      On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying at the signing ceremony for the new law, “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”[129] The law extended a temporary measure that had been in effect since 1998 and covered weapons such as the AK-47, Uzi, and MAC-10.[129] The same law also modified some other aspects of general firearms licensing regulations.[129]

      Next your going to tell me he found Jesus………..My vote is going for Barney the wonder puppy, write in candidate in Texas.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Barney the wonder puppy? Only Obama or Romney can win and no one in their right mind wants it to be the obamanation but it could if you don’t vote against him by voting for Romney.

      2. avatar Mikeinid says:

        I think the Huff po is calling you. Maybe you should go back.

      3. avatar Ralph says:

        On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons

        Read this so you’ll know the truth, or ignore it if you choose.

        Romney isn’t the reincarnation of Charleton Heston, but he’s all we have.

        1. avatar LongPurple says:

          A helluva lot better than the only viable alternative — 4 more years of Obama/Biden/Clinton/Holder, et al. “with more flexibility”.

        2. avatar WLCE says:

          “4 more years of Obama/Biden/Clinton/Holder, et al. “with more flexibility””

          you forgot about the “most transparent government in our history” LMAO!!! 😀

    2. avatar Aharon says:

      “War is young men dying, and old men talking”

      Gone to graveyards everyone…When will they ever learn…
      Say hello to the new boss…Same as the old boss…

    3. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      development of energy

      Accur81, I think you’re talking about yet more ways to accomplish fossil-fuel extraction, right?

      Because Mr. Obama has done more to support development of non-petrochemical energy sources than any other president in modern times, including 17 utility-scale solar projects on public lands with total power output of 5,900 MW.

      Not trying to change your mind, just pointing out that there’s more than one way to create a bright future for American energy needs. If you haven’t driven a Chevy Volt, you should take one for a test drive — after driving a friend’s Volt I was convinced that we absolutely can break free of the Saudi stranglehold in my lifetime.

      1. avatar SCS says:

        “Because Mr. Obama has done more to support development of non-petrochemical energy sources than any other president in modern times”

        Like Solyndra?

        1. avatar sanchanim says:

          LOL I think there was only one thing I agreed with in the article. Otherwise it sat with me like bad chowfun!

      2. avatar Chris says:

        We get most of our oil from Canada, so there is no Saudi stranglehold as far as the US is concerned… When gas prices go up it is because North American suppliers have the option to sell their oil overseas for higher prices, and the US has to pay even more to keep it here. Developing more oil production in North America won’t change the problems rooted in the international market, unless the US nationalizes its oil industry which is something that I don’t think many people want.

        Electricity, however, is still mostly cut off from the international marketplace. When we use solar and wind energy, we don’t have to compete for the energy generating resources against growing Chinese and Indian consumption.

        1. avatar SCS says:

          “g”, quoting an article from the washington post? Next time just link MSNBC or CNN. Not buying the horse shit the author is selling.

        2. avatar AlphaGeek says:

          Agreed on all points. We may import much of our oil from Canada, but we do so in the context of a global marketplace where the Middle East nations have the ability to act as market spoilers.

      3. avatar sanchanim says:

        For oil and natural gas extraction, Obama hasn’t done much of anything. He can say that have increased production to an all time high though. Red states have governors who pushed to increase drilling on private lands. So that is where the production comes from. Meanwhile the only thing I know on record he did was close off government owned lands to drilling.

        Obama also pushed a lot of stimulus money towards solar, and wind power. Some of those companies either function out of country or have gone bankrupt. I don’t believe in stimulus for oil companies either BTW. I am not against wind or solar, heck where I live we have an abundance of both, and I could effectively live off grid. I just don’t think the government should be bailing out companies. That is not it’s purpose.

        Obama also pushed through changes to the time and how truckers of oil or gas can spend on the clock. Part of that issue is truckers go to remote sites, then sit there all day to have the truck filled. Before they would be off clock, which was a specific exemption. They weren’t driving, just hanging out sleeping or what ever until their truck was ready. Now this isn’t the case. They are kept on clock even though they are just sitting there.
        This will increase the cost of delivery, and also kill amount delivered without drastically increasing the amount of trucks.

        I have driven the Chevy Volt. It isn’t a bad car, but doesn’t have the range I need for my job etc. I would rather go with a Scion IQ or something which gets descent gas mileage.

      4. avatar Accur81 says:

        Actually I’m talking about oil as a near – term solution, and Obama’s blockage of the Alaskan pipeline, Obama’s anti – pickup truck stance, and his comfort level with increasing the price of gasoline. I happen to enjoy cars that can accelerate, and the Prius sucks at that task. I’m also talking nuclear energy. Solar is great, but requires epic governmetal subsidies. Wind energy in the Midwest has also resulted in heavy financial losses, and I don’t much appreciate gigantic fanblades spinning and humming near my hunting grounds in Friesland, WI.

        As to budget, look to Wisconsin. Their budget was balanced by Republican Scott Walker. Paul Ryan has a working budget already on the books, and Mitt Romney clearly knows how to expand wealth within the private sector. I’m not stupid enough to think that massive government expansion will fix our budget woes.

        I could type much more, but I’m stuck with an iPhone at the moment. Suffice it to say that I vehemtly oppose the whole DiFi / Bloomberg / Clinton / Feinstein / Obama liberal crowd with great enthusiasm. You are free to vote otherwise if you think that’s best. I for one do not welcome AWB / Arms Treaties / and massive gun control measures in the D – cities and states like Chicago, San Francisco, NY, and Los Angeles.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          I was meaning to reply to AlphaGeek – not sure what happened.

          Obama is impressive on green energy, but not so much on other fronts. As RF and others continuously express, a second Obama term is a scary prospect for gun owners.

          I haven’t driven the Volt, and but I have (regrettably) done time in a Prius. I’m continuously irritated that there aren’t street legal quads. I think a gasoline powered quad with a 600-900 cc motorcycle engine and a curb weight under 1500 pounds could achieve 40-60 mpg and actually be fun to drive. Heck, I’d style one like one old Army Jeep with modern underpinnings.

          I’m a driver, and like fun vehicles, and I’m partial to vehicles that can haul ass. I don’t want to get squished by a soccer mom in a three ton SUV who’s deep into an “important” text message.

        2. avatar AlphaGeek says:

          Heh. You think the Prius is bad (and I think it’s OK, but not good by any means) you should try the Honda Prius knockoff, the Insight. I believe a prominent UK reviewer described it as “the automotive equivalent of a hair shirt”, and it got worse after that.

          The Volt is the first non-homebuilt electric-capable car for under $50K that I could see myself driving. And I say that as someone who (1) has never bought an American-made car, and (2) has a fair bit of track time under my belt.

        3. avatar Other Derek says:

          Accur81, there are quads on the street all over the place in the Free State directly to the east of you.

      5. avatar bdk says:


        The 90 billion stimulus in the Energy sector was an unprecedented case in cronyism and poor decision making. So many investments were made in sketchy technologies and companies it is criminal. Never mind all of the money that went over seas for the core technologies. Don’t believe me, read about Abound Solar. 400 million gone right there.

      6. avatar WLCE says:

        “Not trying to change your mind, just pointing out that there’s more than one way to create a bright future for American energy needs.”

        and what bright future for american energy needs awaits???

        the facts point to something the complete opposite: hobbesian terror.

        Thats not a demerit on obama, its a demerit on our society’s entire way of thinking.

    4. avatar jwm says:

      “Old soldiers never die……..Young ones do.”

  7. avatar AlphaGeek says:

    CINC’s poorly conceived and ill-informed “gotcha moment”

    I have a problem with the obvious bias in the way this question was worded. That’s my problem, though, nobody else’s.

    I have no problem with the President pointing out to Mr. Romney that military requirements evolve over time, not least of all because of the relentless forward march of technology. Could there be any greater contrast than that between a bayonet vs. a Hellfire or SDB delivered by a drone?

    Folks who are fixated on the whole “bayonets aren’t obsolete” argument are welcome to try telling the infantry corps that we’ll be emphasizing bayonet use in order to better manage ammunition costs. That should go over well.

    1. avatar sanchanim says:

      I remember a friend of mine who grew up in Russia. During the cold war when having a huge navy was important, in theory, he said it was all BS. they had ships and subs, sure, but most probably would have sank the minute they left the harbor. they were under funded poorly manned, and not well maintained. Kind of a paper tiger type of thing.

    2. avatar Fla Catman says:

      Trench warfare has vanished as has the bayonet. How many bayonets have you ever seen on a modern weapon? There is no hand-to-hand combat with a possible exception in silent take down operations (assassinations). Even then a suppressor is a better choice.

      Mr. Farago, stop watching old war movies.

  8. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    obama who??? never heard of him (11/7/12)

  9. avatar fred says:

    politicians- bahhh a pox on all their houses. As much fun as cop-bashing.
    Lets talk guns. Plenty of other places to fight over which talking bubblehead is better.

  10. Went to a gun site and an absurd, uniformed cartoon popped up slamming my pro war, pro capitalism, pro gun, pro oil and pro military president. Seems about average. There are no real leftists in office so you guys made one up.

    1. avatar Other Derek says:

      So where are the M1 Carbines that south Korea wants to send us? Why did we participate AT ALL in the UN small Arms Treaty? Care to comment on Fast and Furious? How about how Sotomayor and Kagan will vote/have voted on 2A issues?
      Just another Statist.

  11. avatar LTC F says:

    I’ve spent a bit of time in the Joint world, and have some good friends who drive F18’s in the Navy and USMC. We get away with deploying carrier battle groups without their full compliment of support ships because we’ve been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you haven’t noticed Al Qaeda, J’ash Almahdi, and the Taliban are lacking in anti-ship missiles, submarines, and naval attack aircraft. Iran, China, North Korea and the Soviet Union….oops the Russian Federation have all of the above. That means those guided missile cruisers, destroyers and attack subs will be busy protecting the carriers…as will much of the air wing, instead of dropping JDAMS. That’s when the price of a small navy will show up. As the Brits found out in the Falklands (not the Maldives as the President thought) it only takes one lucky missile to sink a capital ship.

    1. avatar WLCE says:

      LTC, wouldnt be nice if we still had battleships???

      1. avatar irock350 says:

        Battleships are slow and inefecient compared to missile frigates loaded with ship-to-ship missiles.

        1. avatar WLCE says:

          and, tell me my dear, how exactly do AShMs work??? They penetrate the armor and then explode behind it. This is fine and dandy if you’re combating another vessel that is lightly armored (if you knew how lightly armored modern vessels are, it would scare you to death), but against a vessel with armor a good number of inches thick, the AShm will be rendered useless.

          And slow??? the last battleships used during desert storm were commissioned during the world war II era. The Iowa-Class Battleships.

          Try using MODERN technologies on a equivalent vessel and find out what you get. It will not be “slow” and “inefficient”. The US will also have a unique, decisive advantage in the world power structure since we would possess a weapon that could utterly smash the few carriers any combatant nation could have and the sophisticated SAM and ballistic missile systems that threaten and nullify the effectiveness of carriers.

          but that makes too much sense! lets just squander more money on F35s, F22s, Zulwalt Destroyers, and more bull manure.

        2. WLCE: in the battle between armor and spear, we always come up with a better spear.

        3. avatar irock350 says:

          WLCE no one uses battleships anymore. Subs, Aircraft carriers , and ship to ship miss les made them an expensive luxury with limited range and limited applications in modern warfare. Their big guns and outdated boilers limit their range and that makes them vulnerable to exocent missile strikes.

          We could build new battleships with more range and efficiency, updated weapon systems and arm or, but why? Where is the threat that justifies the axtra expense? We have more aircraft carriers, subs, frigates and naval power than any other nation.

          Our nations budget is the biggest threat to national security, and enlarging it to build up our navy for nonexistant threats doesn’t solve the debt crisis. We need to cut cap our military spending, not increase it.

        4. avatar WLCE says:

          “WLCE no one uses battleships anymore.”

          Yes I am aware of that. Nowhere did i say otherwise.

          “Subs, Aircraft carriers , and ship to ship miss les made them an expensive luxury with limited range and limited applications in modern warfare.”

          Not true at all, which you would realize if you read the links I provided. With the technology that allows those aforementioned ships to evolve, they would also allow battleships to evolve.

          There is nothing “luxurious” about being able to strike deep inland with heavy munitions, support amphibious operations, annihilate enemy naval vessels and their aircraft carriers (especially Russian and Chinese ones), and provide force projection anywhere in the world. Those are essential pillars in the paradigm of naval warfare.

          and the US has removed a essential pillar, expecting the aircraft carrier to fill in the gap. This is a folly.

          “Their big guns and outdated boilers limit their range and that makes them vulnerable to exocent missile strikes.”

          Which can be mitigated with modernized technology. Jesus christ, the LAST battleship in service was first commissioned in 1943, using essentially 1930s technology.

          And do you know how a exocet missile works? or how any AShM works? perhaps you need to refer my original posts and how it would take more than that to kill a Battleship. Even compared to a 1940s Iowa, modern destroyers are thinly armored.

          That is also assuming the same anti-missile technology isn’t applied to a modern battleship, which obviously wouldnt be true.

          “We could build new battleships with more range and efficiency, updated weapon systems and arm or, but why? Where is the threat that justifies the axtra expense? We have more aircraft carriers, subs, frigates and naval power than any other nation.”

          Its not going to happen either. The military is now focused on appearances rather than substance, and is somehow focused on maintaining a empire with a reduced defense budget, which will fail miserably.

          We already f–ked up royally by focusing on aircraft carriers rather than battleships, so the military will not ever build any more…even if they sustain higher losses in a hypothetical World War III (since when did the military care anyways?).

          “Our nations budget is the biggest threat to national security, and enlarging it to build up our navy for nonexistant threats doesn’t solve the debt crisis. We need to cut cap our military spending, not increase it.”

          I agree 100%. Its not a matter of hypothetically reducing the defense budget, its a matter of WE HAVE TO because we dont have a choice. But the military is showing no signs of wanting to reduce the budget; if they cared about saving money, they would cancel the wasteful V22, F35, F22, Zumwalt, and production of carriers (to name just a few). Again, appearances not substance.

    2. He meant to say Malvinas, their Spanish name. Easy to confuse the term, particularly since the English name is the common name. He who has never made a Freudian slip throw the first stone, please.

  12. avatar ensitu says:

    I’ll take Horseshoes and Bayonets over Treasonous Islamists in the WH anytime. at least bayonets only hurt those they are pointed at.
    PS Obama is the son of Frank Marshal Davis

  13. avatar Jim says:

    Not really a fan of Romney but I’m goin to assume any gun owner that reads this site probably does more than just keep grandpas old police revolver in the closet at a family heirloom. So I can’t understand how anybody on here can support Obama and at the same time think that given an opportunity, he wouldn’t ( with the help of the congress and senate and supreme court appointees) enact the most far reaching gun control/confiscation laws in the history if this country. You know he would. It’s a shame that we don’t yet have a large enough 3rd party in this country that could be relied upon to block any and all legislation that may come up but I’m hoping to see it happen in my lifetime.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Mkay, so how’s the 5% votr for johnson going to bring down the 2 party system? Most if not all of those votes will be from conservatives which will simply insure that barry gets a second term. I’m unclear on how this does us any good.

        If the dems aren’t paying johnson to stay in the race they should be.

  14. avatar asdfk says:

    Two nitwits pretending to disagree is not a debate.

  15. avatar LTC F says:

    He meant to insult our closest allie, Great Britain, buy suggesting that an island chain that Argentina has threatened to annex by force again, despite two plebisites in which over 90% of the residents voted to stay British, rightfully belongs to Argentina. What happened was he wasn’t nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and used the wrong name, looking like a fool, AND insulting our closest NATO allie. A twofer for THE SMARTEST PRESIDENT EVER (TM).

    1. Actually, he used both names (OK, one he slipped and mispronounced) to not alienate (or insult equally, I suppose) either side. There is something to be said for not pissing off the other half of the continent so uncionveniently attached to the South.
      Besides, I think the Brits and their stiff upper lip can take it without taking it personally.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email