Hussein: we don’t need no army, no navy, we got technology for that

A reader points out that the Marines still use bayonets and over at Intapundit a retired Special Forces warrior supplies this picture. The Navy, by the way, wants 311 new ships, notwithstanding the Commander in Chief’s contention that the troubles of the world can be handled via video games in the Pentagon War Room.

Low tech in Afghanistan

42 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

42 responses to “Hussein: we don’t need no army, no navy, we got technology for that

  1. Fun

    I think the comment was less horses and bayonets, not no horses and bayonets. And do we need 311 ships like the Great White Fleet, or do we need 100 more ships like the recently commissioned USS America, which cost 2.2 billion

  2. Dollar Bill

    The Navy wants 311 new ships? So what? Are taxpayers supposed to just rubber stamp every request that comes down the pike from the Navy? If you’re Mitt Romney, the answer is yes. Why? Bayonets or something. Once again, fiscal responsibility rests with all branches of government, but not the Pentagon, if you’re a Tea Partier.

  3. Willard was out of his league last night…why was he so passive? Looked like Obama in the first debate. In essence, he agreed with Obama on many things, and Libya is now off the table. A guy on Morning Joe (John Heilemann) called it “the audacity of etch”. Brilliant!!

  4. Atticus

    It’s pretty obvious that community organizers do not make good commanders in chief.

    Barry loses because 53% want to vote against him and now they can safely do so.

  5. anon

    Bob A: You wouldn’t know brilliant strategy if it landed on your lap.
    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/10/23/romneys-brilliant-maneuver/

  6. Anon, nice post from a right wing rag sheet. Care to explain how Romney gets out of the auto bailout trap? What are the right wing rag sheets saying? And Atticus, if Obama has been so bad, why did Romney agree with his policies so much???

    • Care to explain how Romney gets out of the auto bailout trap?

      If you’ll explain your question, I’m sure we have some crayons and drawing paper around and can provide an explanation you’ll be able to understand.
      But first we need to know what you’re asking.

  7. OK. In the op-ed four years ago, Romney said Detroit should go bankrupt, receive no federal assistance, AND GET FUNDING FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR. Let’s take a trip down memory lane…there was no lending going on! Without government assistance, goodbye Detroit. Now Romney says his plan was the same as Obama’s. The trap is how can Romney change history, when his past says otherwise?
    So right wingers, get out your crayons and etch a sketch and explain. Remember, we are not discussing whether this was right or wrong…how do you say this to people in Ohio??

    • Bob, Romney did say GM should go through bankruptcy and since that’s exactly what it did under Obama’s care (and I do hope you didn’t own any of its bonds, you poor guy) then I assume they two men did agree on what was necessary.
      As for your assertion that without government assistance there would be no Detroit, that’s just silly. Ford is still with us without government bailouts but more to the point, other, better managed car companies would have come in, just as happened in England, where their obsolete, dying auto industry has been completely rejuvenated by foreign firms.
      Should we have let the banks fail too? You bet we should have, and I, like you, blame bush for interfering with the process. Unlike you, I also blame Obama and his own brand of crony capitalism, but there’s plenty of blame to go around here.
      Which is why there are those of us on the right who think we should have a smaller, not larger government. You may want to explore that concept someday.

  8. anon

    Bob A: White House Dossier is anything but a right wing rag. Koffler is as critical of Romney as many on the left are. He calls it like it is, a straight shooter and gives Obama credit when its due.

    Next argument?

  9. Al Dente

    I don’t understand why there is any debate.
    Romney: Business and Olympics and Massachusetts…..success and balanced budgets.
    Obama: Four years at the helm……zero balanced budgets…..not even a budget to balance. Complete and total failure.
    Einstein: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

  10. anon

    Bob: Meanwhile, the stock market is tanking again today, furthering my point that Romney was better served addressing last night’s debate audience about the economy and not engaging Obama in “I know more than you do”. People are going to vote their pocketbook. Not Libya. Not ships and bayonets. Not even who said what about the auto bailout. Here’s one reporter’s view on the auto bailout and the 2008 Romney op-ed:

    The dispute between the candidates boils down to whether or not — as President Bush, and then President Obama believed — government loans were necessary to save Detroit or whether — as Romney argued — private financing, backed by federal guarantees, would have been a wiser response. Proponents of the government loans issued to the auto companies, however, say that credit was so tight during the economic crisis of 2008 that federal guarantees would not have freed up enough private capital to save General Motors and Chrysler.

  11. Anonymous

    @ Bob A.

    Here ya’ go, this from hardcore Barry supporters like yourself:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1600092

  12. ML

    Bob A. get your facts straight before you opine….

    A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

    In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0

  13. First Anon..really? Then how come in the heading they have columns for Biden and Michelle, and then attacks? Where are the titles Willard and Trump?? Second anon..your italicized comment is exactly what I said, and is the problem Romney has to explain to people in Ohio. And Al Dente, good point about debt. So how is Romney going to pay for the $5 trillion to $8 trillion more from defense spending and tax cuts??? Virtually all states require a balanced budget, that is a non starter…when in doubt, how about another tax cut??

  14. CF, you are right about Ford. I stand corrected on all of Detroit. They mortgaged everything to stay out of Chapter 11. But let me repeat, Romney said it would have to be bailed out by the private sector, not the feds. Then he would explore guarantees, like Reagan did. There was no lending going on in 2008 and 2009!! (I did not own any bonds.) I don’t think most of us wanted over 1 million jobs lost…and having foreign firms come in, that would take years to replace those jobs.
    These are value judgments; and most of us are glad the situation has turned out the way it has.
    Now the banks, that is another story!!

  15. Anonymous

    “smaller , not larger government “. Your words.

    so how do explain the military defense spending ? even if it is over 10 years.

    is military defense spending somehow not government spending? Are military employees somehow not government employees?

  16. Balzac

    Silly $Bill: no one wants 311 new ships. It’s 300 ships total.

    Remember when Reagan sought a 600 ship navy? Didn’t quite get there, but the objective did change the world, by contributing to the demise of the Soviet Union, and all the benefits for human liberty that ensued.

    Romney was subtle and strategic last night in not bringing up Benghazi. Remember under Reagan when the Russkies shot down KAL-007, killing hundreds of civilians? The liberal press was just waiting to know Reagan’s response. Throw out their diplomats? Start sanctions? Military maneuvers? Diplomatic conflict? And Reagan was wise and….silent. By doing nothing, he ensured that the world’s focus was on the Soviet atrocity, not the Reagan response. Likewise, by avoiding the issue last night, Romney ensured that the US will continue talking about the Obama administration’s failures in Benghazi. Watch the bouncing ball: by not talking about it, Romney ensured….that everyone is talking about it, as you can see in today’s press. This is what strategy looks like. Harvard Business 1, Harvard Law 0.

    Romney talked about big policies. Obama talked about Romney’s investment portfolio’s allocation to China from decades ago…….

    Which one looked presidential?

  17. Anonymous

    American polictics at its best last night. Tough choice between Laurel & Hardy.

  18. anon44

    Balzac, agree totally about who looked presidential but what I found more informative was after the debate: per the norm, Romney had his whole family there rooting for him, many of whom rushed to hug him. Obama had Michelle. Romney is a man who gathers alot of good people around him and who looks for grounding from his family. Obama is a loner and ponders the fate of American alone in his head. Obama feels he’s too smart to listen to others and seems removed from his family. That scares the hell out of me. Isn’t it odd that Obama’s children, or his mother-in-law or his brother-in-law weren’t there on stage post-debate to give him high fives? And look how happy Mitt seems, as a man, as a husband, as a father. Obama is lost at sea in his 1917 Navy ships.

  19. Anonymous

    under romney’s plan for GM, the unions would have been forced to make serious concessions regarding the underfunded pensions, Obama, kept the unions hole and wiped out the private investment side of the equation ..pretty simple…as for last night ..Romney acted like he is playing with a lead b/c he is …this election is going to be a landslide

  20. Anonymous

    anon44 – if the extent of your political analysis focuses on which of the candidates family is present after the debate to hi-five him, it says a lot about the sophistication of the American electorate……..

  21. anon44…how sad. Obama’s kids are young and in school..his mother-in-law watches them while he and Michelle travel. Where do you come up with this stuff?? Romney’s kids are grown; if I said they should find gainful employment, you’d be ticked. Does that “scare the hell out of you?”

  22. Anonymous

    @ anonn44:

    it’s appropriate that Obama’s children are home on a school night at 10pm.

    what a stupid argument.

  23. Walt

    Dude –
    Romney was factually correct on GM and Barry lied. Here is the debate transcript and the Op -Ed that Romney wrote.
    http://patterico.com/2012/10/22/fact-check-obama-challenges-us-to-look-up-romneys-op-ed-so-i-do/
    Bob A. is wrong. Typical libtard who believes what he wants to believe in spite of the facts.
    Your Pal,
    Walt

  24. AJ

    Anon 9:31: Love your link. That guy has it all figured out.

  25. AJ

    Anon 9:52, members of the armed forces are not employees. Employees can quit; soldiers do not have that option.

  26. Atticus

    Obozo screwed up, as usual:

    The US Army today has more than 560,000 troops and the USMC more than 200,000. Obama is wrong. we have hundreds of thousands more bayonets now than in 1916.http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-wrong-about-bayonets.html

    Sarcasm and condescension only work if the speaker’s presumption of lofty superior knowledge is borne out by his command of actual facts. You can’t successfully accuse your opponent of being an ignoramus when you don’t know what you’re talking about yourself.

  27. Anonymous

    Yes – real sophisticated. Go play with your horses and bayonets!!!

  28. Anon and AJ..if GM and Chrysler did not have bailout funds, there would be no need for government guarantees; no private equity was around at the time to guarantee!! This is all over the internet, check it out. Question: where would these companies gotten the $50 billion in the first place to guarantee back in 2008?? Read Walt’s source, and you will find out. He should stick to the babes…

  29. hmmm

    bob,

    then they would be out of business…who is backstopping the small business on greenwich avenue selling widgets? exactly, no one, so why should we backstop big companies? because you think the loss of jobs would be devestating? well that’s simply not true, if chrysler and gm were to go oob some other car company would come in and pick up the slack maybe bmw, toyota, kia, ford etc and in order to absorb the increase in production they would have to hire people so the best ex gm and chrysler employees would find work….that’s the way it works

    anon @ 11:24,

    landslide indeed!

  30. Mr. 85 Braod Street

    Bob A.,
    Steve Rattner, Obama’s car czar, said that during GM’s bankruptcy (yes, both Chrysler and GM went through bankruptcy) the Obama administration’s view was that the private sector would not provide the debtor in possession (DIP) financing necessary for GM to successfully reorganize. They never asked the market for that financing to see if that was indeed the case. Instead they had the federal government “step up” to provide that financing in order to control the reorganization process and protect the labor unions. Like in most other bankruptcies, GM’s creditors and bondholders (a lot of your pension and 401k mutual funds) got stiffed. Over 30% of the equity in the reorganized company was given to the UAW benefits trust while the taxpayers still have a $50+ billlion loss on funds loaned to GM before the BK that were wiped out. Having watched the pensions of friends and neighbors (and United Steelworker union members) get wiped out in the Bethlehem Steel bankruptcy (a traditional private sector one), it astonishes me that people cannot see the GM deal for what it was – a gift to the UAW at the expense of all taxpayers cloaked in the guise of saving the economies of Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.

  31. hmmm and broad street…remember the credit crunch? Bernanke said we were going into another Great Depression if we did not have it. And Rattner made the assumption that it would not be available (credit). He was probably correct. But the issue is how Romney is trying to rewrite history, not the good or bad of what happened. One of my early posts here concerned value judgments..that is what was made here. And the bondholders lost, the workers took huge pay cuts, management for GM and Chrysler got canned, it was ugly all the way around.

    • The non-union workers got the haircuts, Bob, not the UAW workers, a development that is once again being investigated and will once again go nowhere. Now if Bain Capital had run the show and screwed the union members in favor of the non’s, I think we’d be hearing a lot more about it, somehow.

  32. Balzac

    FIAT ended up with quasi-control of Chrysler. My sources at FIAT say that their company’s observation was, “Shhhhh. It seems the crazy Americans are spending lots of their money to repair Chrysler and hand it to us for pennies. This is incredibly stupid from the Americans’ point of view, but how can we decline?”

  33. Walt

    Dude –
    I try not to piss off the reader. Because you would be lost without one.
    But Bob A is an ignorant slut [Walt – here at FWIW we’ve decided that “an ignorant Foley” conveys the same meaning but without offending our more delicate readers – please observe this courtesy in the future – Rush will be pleased, too Ed]. With a government guarantee, the auto companies would have had unlimited access to borrowings. No matter what the state of the free market credit markets where. A government guarantee is a lock. Like a prepaid hooker.

    Romney’s approach to this was correct. Barry screwed the bondholders to gain union support. And you know who really got screwed? FORD!! They played by the rules, and then have to fight an unfair playing field. It is the antithesis of free market capitalism. No surprise, because Barry is a commie.

    What Barry did with GM is un-American, communist, cheating, thieving, if the car don’t fit, you must acquit. JACKIE CHILDS DUDE!! SEINFELD!!

    Your Pal,
    Walt

  34. ML

    I have tried to keep quiet but its amazing to me how certain Bob A. is of credit. General Growth Properties and Six Flags (just to name two) both went through bankruptcies in 2009 (no govt guarantees) and are still in business today. They did receive DIP financing. Now if the US Govt guaranteed the debt, no question there would have been $50B of private money available (i.e. Fannie and Freddie). The reality is that if the money is guaranteed by the govt or given by the govt in the form of a bailout is simantics. The “bailout” was nothing other than a political move to curry favor with the UAW and thus all other libeturd union groups. Blow up the UAW and union workers country wide would have been in trouble. For example, AA would have been able to dissolve their union in their currentl bankruptcy.

  35. ML

    Oh, and I agree with Walt except that a prepaid hooker is a sure thing. Seems to me that a prepaid hooker is more of a flight risk than a sure thing. 🙂

  36. Walt

    ML –
    That is why they invented rope and handcuffs.
    You dummy.
    Your Pal,
    Walt

  37. kim

    Obama Lies People Die Gas prices go high Promises pie in the Sky
    Makes me want to puke. Sorry, I was never good at poetry.
    Even Letterman is mad that Obama lied about Romney. Obama lies about everything folks. Wake up and smell the roses. It is called pathological.

    You name it , he has lied about it . Sequestration? In the debate he said it wasn’t him it was congress, and that it would never happen. Next day he is claiming sequestration will help, at an Iowa gathering. And by the way, it was Obama’s idea, read Bernstein’s book(hardly a conservative).

    Libya…..now we know the facts……he lied.

    On and on and on……