It Begins… Bayonet Company Rips Obama: “He Should Get Educated”

Via Pseud O’Nym

Last night Barack Obama mocked the use of horses and bayonets in the military.
Today Bayonet Inc. told Obama to “get educated.”
TMZ reported:

TMZ spoke with multiple people in the bayonet industry who tell us they were shocked and even offended when Obama brought up the weapon during last night’s debate.

According to the official U.S. Marine Corps website, every Marine is STILL required to complete a bayonet training program … because “the weapon becomes just as effective [as a rifle] in close combat situations.”

We spoke with Dan Riker from Bayonet Inc. — a leading military surplus outlet that specializes in bayonets — who tells us he believes Obama’s comment was “ignorant … because our soldiers still use bayonets.”

He adds, “[Bayonets] are still distributed to the military all the time — he should get educated on it.”

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • Pingback: It Begins… Bayonet Company Rips Obama: “He Should Get Educated”()

  • Jeff

    Obama’s quote was “LESS horses and bayonets.” This is indisputably true.

    The point was that times change.

    If you do not understand this and/or if you insist on purposefully misunderstanding what he said, I feel sorry for you.

  • great unknown

    Agreed that he should get “educated on it”, but on the enormous list of what Obama is ignorant about and needs to get educated on, the bayonet issue is way down the list.
    At least Biden has the excuse of being not quite as brilliant as he thinks he is.

  • Hal Jordan

    More hilarity. Obama can’t make a move without stepping in something smelly.

  • serfer62

    Yeah Jeff
    and ships that go underwater are called “Sunk”!
    Go bow down to someone and apologize

  • Dagny

    “Obama’s quote was “LESS horses and bayonets.” This is indisputably true.”

    HA! Sorry Jeffy, but the U.S. inventory of bayonets is 400,000. MORE than we had in 1917 so his statement is demonstrably FALSE.

    BTW, it’s “fewer” not “less”. “Fewer” is used for a number and “less” for an ambiguous amount as in less water, fewer horses.

    The ocean has not shrunk by the way and more ships not FEWER are needed to keep the sea lanes open.

    Silly Jeffy

  • the Boodge

    Hey Jeff, your right, times do change and its TIME for obama to GO!

  • Ace

    The Drudge page is hilarious. “Obama” hugging a baby looking over his shoulder with a sad face at the polls: Rasmussen R+4 Gallup R+6. Headline—“Needs A Miracle”. But when you hit the link, the corrupt AP claims the race is tied!

  • chuck in st paul

    Jeff, please quote us the numbers for “less” bayonets.

    Is that total or per capita? Comparing which decades of the US military? Is the Air Force to be included? They didn’t exist for the first 150 years. Even so, our commandos carry KBars. Do KBars count if they do not fit on a bayonet fixture?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  • Underwater Ship

    We don’t need the horsies and knives, we have me and my friends.

  • Dagny

    Hey Underwater Ship, aren’t you technically a “boat”? Obama apparently doesn’t know…

  • Jeff

    You all understand that the reason conservative blogs are pushing this issue so hard is because it’s an attempt to dampen what most people saw as Obama’s most effective refutation of Romney last night, right?

    That’s all this is.

    Do I really need to count up the number of horses and bayonets for you all?

    Look, hate Obama all you want (personally I think he’s a terrorist and I would love to see him out of office) but please focus on REALITY.

    you’re all being taken advantage of.

  • DecentAmerican

    Lol Jeff, typical racist liberal nut job, you try to make a point just like Obozo, and it backfires on you.

    The bigger point is that it shows how grossly IGNORANT Obozo is on the military. He is Commande in Chief to our military, the strongest in the world, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, men with long long histories of military service report to HIM, this Urkel in big pants, and yet he is completely clueless. You do recall that he can not even pronounce “corpsman”?

    And you Libby nut jobs have the audacity to call Palin stupid?

    Get it straight…Obozo did not get Bin laden…..our brave seals did. Obozo did NOTHING. in the fast and furious scandal, he armed the enemy with assault rifles, and our our border patrol with bean bag bullets. That is nothing short of TREASON.

    and yet you Libbos still defend this savage? Our brave men and women have fought for years so that Americans never have to bow before anyone again, and this Urkel bows to numerous leaders?

  • Underwater Ship

    Well Dag, the brilliant leader said I exist, therefore I am. 🙂
    After all, he’s so brilliantly brilliant the rest of you people don’t
    understand the way his brilliantly brilliant mind works so brilliantly.

  • Jeff

    DecentAmerican, that’s a lot of very rude words. Please don’t ever call me a liberal again.

  • Pingback: It Begins… Bayonet Company Rips Obama: “He Should Get Educated” | Born Conservative()

  • Conrad

    @Jeff: The point is, if the U.S. military has fewer bayonets today than in 1916, it’s mainly because, in 1916, the U.S. was gearing up to fight a war (WWI) which would eventually see the Army grow to something like 3.5 million men. If we have fewer bayonets today, it is NOT because bayonets have somehow become technologically obsolete, as the president and you seem to suggest.

    Admittedly, “times change” and there’s an argument to be made that simply comparing the number of specific weapons between now and 1916 won’t always tell the whole story. However, Obama looks ignorant in trying to use the example of bayonets to make that point for the reason that bayonets are still a part of a modern’s infantryman’s gear.

  • Navyvet

    So the Joint Chiefs of Staff all agree with Obama. Too bad nobody mentioned that each of them serves (like every military officer) at the pleasure of the President. Obama appointed the Chiefs, of course they agree with him. How PC is the Joint Chiefs crowd? Too much for my taste and, unfortunately, not good for the nation.

  • Big Bird

    Thank you, President Obama, for using taxpayer money forme and my friends on Sesame Street rather than the Navy.

  • snap boy

    Why waste the classroom space; maybe he could just waft off to Hawaii and play golf for evermore.

  • Chris Light

    Jeff in #2. What Obama did was try to insinuate that Romney was ignorant of the military and hinted that “ships” are things of the past by comparing them to horses and what he thought was another outdated weapon, the bayonet. But he ignorantly fails to understand that, while aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines are very important in today’s Navy, other countries have these weapons too. Other SHIPS like Destroyers, protect from and hunt for enemy Submarines, Cruisers carry tomahawks, etc., frigates carry advanced Anti-ICBM weaponry, and so forth. Our Navy has advanced. But reducing the numbers of ships still means a reduction in World coverage and Power Projection.

    Obama is a community organizer. He’ll never get it.

  • Bill Mitchell

    Here’s an important finding, from @conartcritic. In a poll conducted Oct. 1st through 21st, Gallup found the party affiliation of the country very nearly evenly split:


    Gallup survey of party affiliation pref for 1-21 Oct: Dem 34.3% GOP 34.1% Ind 31.6%

  • Robert

    #18 Navyvet:

    “How PC is the Joint Chiefs crowd? Too much for my taste and, unfortunately, not good for the nation.”

    They are so PC, and political, that they cannot fulfill their mission as effectively as possible. They allow the people under their charge to be placed into untenable situations that cost American lives solely due to PC concerns, some of which are applied to their own individual career ambitions.

  • dwd


    You are also neglecting the exact quote by Romney, which was:

    The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. We’re headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration.”

    Romney was talking about TODAY’S Navy. TODAY’S Navy said they needed more ships. Romney was talking about TODAY, Obama twisted it into 1916. Obama did not refute Romney’s assertion about TODAY’S Navy, but rather childishly pulled out a prepared zinger.

    Yes, Obama said “LESS” than 1916, but Romney was talking about TODAY’S Navy needing and requesting more ships.

  • dnice

    Jeff you seem to be on the hot seat.

    I think Pres. Obama’s statement just shows his disconnect with the US Military. While the times do change, terrain and asymmetric warfare requires the US Military to employ basis means of recon/transportation and killing.

    Sometimes you can’t role up, ridin dirty in your battleship and sub and fire at will. You need good HUMINT and skilled marksman (and bayonets/knifes/tomahawks are useful for killing too). I was a Soldier many moons ago so i’m not so certain of how many more ships or vessels we need in the Navy, but even non-conversatives like Robert Kaplan have advocated for a stronger Navy.

  • retired militaryq

    The nation’s top military officer warned Wednesday that automatic defense cuts agreed to in last year’s bipartisan debt limit deal could lead to more war.

    At a Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Pentagon has gone along with recent targeted cuts to limited targeted cuts, but argued that the the sweeping across-the-board cuts in the so-called sequestration would weaken the country’s ability to deter adversaries and therefore lead to more war.

    “Sequestration is absolutely certain to upend this balance. It would lead to further end-strength reductions, the potential cancellation of major weapons systems and the disruption of global operations,” Dempsey said. “We can’t yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation. We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visible globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus, and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict.”

    The remarks suggest that Pentagon leaders are all but hitting the panic button over the defense cuts — totaling half a trillion over 10 years and set to take effect Jan. 1 — and aren’t taking for granted that Congress will act to avert them. They would occur along with $490 billion in existing defense cuts over a decade.

    The White House budget office warned Friday that threatened spending cuts of $1.2 trillion over 10 years that are scheduled to kick in Jan. 2 “would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments and core government functions.”

    Too bad the MSM wont report the above comments.

  • oldguy

    He was corrected by the U.S. Marine Corpse.

  • ohio


    Try a cup of warm milk and a small Vidalia onion or Granny Smith apple. I guarantee you a satisfied colon in short order.

  • Bayonet, Inc. contract will be cancelled. New supplier of bayonets will be Chingwop Steel and Pet Foods Company in Shanghai, China. Nobody tells America’s colored president to get educated and gets away with it. That’s RACIST.

  • Bigkahuna

    The first special forces to enter Afghanistan went in on horseback as well.

  • I guess we shouldn’t expect a JackA$$ to know much about how the modern military operates, they still use HORSES in Afghanistan and in other remote battlefield areas…well, not in Chicago, maybe, and they have as many gun battles, but that doesn’t involve the U.S. military, just Obama’s “army”.

  • SoLongSong
  • Comrade J

    There are 3 bigger points that many miss in our Clown-in-Chief’s comments.

    1. He compares the horses and bayonets to Navy. This is plain idiotic. The nature and the capabilities of the former two do not change. They still function the same way. Navy fleet on the other hand constantly undergoing upgrades. The increase in utility does not logically necessitate the decrease in quantity. In other words, just because the fleet units are capable of doing more, does not automatically mean that we need to have fewer of them. The military has more advanced guns now, does it mean we only need to give them to half the troops?

    2. Secondly he talks of submarines and aircraft carriers as if they are not part of the Navy. You see we have those, so we can cut the Navy… Let them eat cake, said Antoinette Obama.

    3. And thirdly, the clown just flat out lied to you. Navy is resisting the cuts.

  • Granny

    #18 October 23, 2012 at 12:53 pm
    Navyvet commented:

    So the Joint Chiefs of Staff all agree with Obama. Too bad nobody mentioned that each of them serves (like every military officer) at the pleasure of the President. Obama appointed the Chiefs, of course they agree with him. How PC is the Joint Chiefs crowd? Too much for my taste and, unfortunately, not good for the nation.

    Absolutely. If you want to know what high ranking military officers really think, listen to the ones that are retired an no longer serving at the pleasure of some politico.

  • Douglas

    When the Big E is deactivated on 01 DEC we will only have 10 aircraft carriers in the fleet. I seem to remember a time, not too long ago, when 15 carriers and associated air wings was considered to be the minimum needed to support US interests around the world. Given that there are always several carriers that are either in a yard availability or in work-ups, the number of carriers that are available has dwindled to a dangerously low level. Also, every carrier battlegroup needs escort ships, submarines and replenishment ships. We hardly have enough of those to support the limited number of carriers. We are at a point where we are operationally restricted by the shortage of ships. We are below the minimum number of ships needed for peacetime/low intensity conflict missions. If we actually got into a shooting war we would be in a world of hurt. Obama has absolutely no appreciation of these realities. So, Jeff, argue all you want that the bayonet response is a diversion; it doesn’t change reality. We are rapidly approaching the hollow military of the Carter years and Obama bears much of the blame. Obama is not qualified to be commander in chief. He is not qualified to be president. Hell, he was pushing his limits as a community organizer.

  • Pingback: Bayonet Company’s Message to the President: Hey! Back Off. We’re Still Relevant… « pundit from another planet()

  • Pingback: FPD: Barack is Soooo Cool and Cute and Funny… Mitt Romney is Stuffy and Serious and… um, Presidential… « Mornin' Mojo()

  • maynardb61

    I suspect our Navy may be short on resources given the fact that the Russians have been in the Gulf of Mexico recently undetected for days in a sub. And yes, while in the Army I took
    bayonet training (that was in ’69). I don’t know what they do today.

  • Jeff, if you’re soooooo offended by what conservative blogs are posting, there are plenty of alternatives. Please try an altermative. Is that pleasant enough for you, cupcake?

  • OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY FAILURE: BENGHAZI, LIBYA. The one minute video below shows just one massive Obama foreign policy failure which led to the death of a U.S. Ambassador and three other American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12. Tonight is the third and final debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and the topic of … READ MORE:

  • RL

    > #2 October 23, 2012 at 12:22 pm
    > Jeff commented:

    > Obama’s quote was “LESS horses and bayonets.”

    Regardless of the lack of correct information [how often are we expected ignore the whiner’s deficiencies in this regard?], one of you – likely both – is/are not the smartest in the room with this kind of deficient grammar. Moron[s]

  • ralph

    we get it jeff… just hope you get it too… thats we are worried about…. we know the president doesnt get it….

  • Oliver

    #42 RL
    – the “less ships” vs. the proper “fewer ships” bugged me as well, especially coming from the President of the Harvard Law Review 😉

    – Oblamer & his ignorant surrogates also need to spring for a dictionary and an atlas. They’re on the airwaves today mocking Mitt’s “Russia as #1 foe” comment. In fact, what Mitt said was that Russia is our #1 GEOPOLITICAL FOE and Al Qaeda is our #1 enemy.

    Last time I checked Al Qaeda is not a country. So Mitt was right. Again.
    That’s what happens when you don’t spend your college years in a drug haze.

  • Paul

    Speaking of underwater boats…On His Watch….

    A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

    It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.

    The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.

    The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.

    The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.

  • chuck in st paul

    #45 Paul, one often has to wonder if incidents like this aren’t just fund raisers. Just sayin’…

  • Daniel

    Just curious, if we currently have less than 3 million soldiers and marines combined in use today, how is it we had didn’t have more bayonets in 1917 when the AEF was numbered between 3-5 million?

  • comfy

    Jeff commented: “Obama’s quote was “LESS horses and bayonets.” This is indisputably true.”

    Probably less horses is true … but in 1916 we had about 130k Marines – we now have over 200k Marines plus thousands of Reserves. Indisputably more bayonets.

    Math is hard.

    You make want to take a look at the book: Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan Good read

  • mg4us

    And Speaking of getting Educated
    WTF is Debbie Wutz-her-Name Shultz

    She is a Jew that would sell her other jewish brethren out!
    Just like Soros did during WWII.

  • Dagny

    Don’t forget that Obama promised defense contractors that they would be reimbursed for all fines and law suits if they disobeyed the WARN Act and did not tell their employees of lay offs (due primarily to sequestration) before the election. OPM agreed but the contractors want this language put into their contracts since Congress, Obama you corrupt lying dumbasss, is the one with the money and no one thinks they’ll part with it to salve the lawbreaking that Obama is demanding these contractors take part in. Let’s see if the individual entities responsible for the contracts in the Govt are forced to put that language in the contracts to try to save Obama’s sorry butt between now and Nov 6. BTW, the fines and lawsuits would be in the BILLIONS of dollars obviating any monetary savings from sequestration—-but the profits would go to lawyers not the fired employees.

  • Militant Conservative

    To lil Jeffy,

    Obama just showed America what a truely uncouth and bereft of substance he is.

    He fell prey to the white mans trap, He was civil, Obama was not.

    powder is dry

  • Steve J


    “You all understand that the reason conservative blogs are pushing this issue so hard is because it’s an attempt to dampen what most people saw as Obama’s most effective refutation of Romney last night, right?

    No, not “people”, and certainly not military people. Those that took the horses and bayonet comment away as some sort of win for the President were either liberals or those who enjoy debates for theater, not substance. Many of the latter may have already reconsidered the point given how much of a red-herring it was from the meat of Romney’s argument: that the Navy has less ships than what the military desires.

  • Pingback: Megyn Kelly: Press Room Erupted in Applause & Laughter at Obama’s Bayonet and Horses Line (Video) | PolitifreakPolitifreak()

  • bg


    October 23, 2012

    Brahimi’s peace plan latest failure in Syria

    [It is offensive to Muslims and especially all Syrians to throw out one
    more date for a ceasefire that only prolongs the agony and empowers
    Assad’s thugs to continue their slaughter. The deaths in Syria have
    climbed well past 30,000 with now reports of over 2 million homes
    destroyed and yet there is still no real leadership on how to stop the
    bloodshed and remove Assad from power. The Presidential race has
    essentially ground any efforts by the Obama Administration at helping
    bring an end to the Assad regime to a complete halt. The Syrian people
    can no longer trust any role which this administration would have in
    helping them bring their own misery to an end.

    Violence is spreading across the region with attacks from the
    Assad regime on opponents in Beirut, Lebanon and terrorist
    plots from al-Qaeda elements in Jordan that were armed by
    militants crossing the border into Syria.

    Western embassies were potential targets in the Jordanian plot.
    American lives were once again in the crosshairs because the
    Obama administration has failed to develop any strategy, let
    alone a winning strategy, for the changes taking place in the
    Middle East and specifically Syria.

    Syria has the potential to be the linchpin for change in the region.
    A truly free Syria diminishes the reach of Iran, provides a buffer for
    Israel and removes an ally for Hezbollah and Hamas.

    A free Syria is a game changer. But it requires leadership and courage
    in the face of the enemies of freedom. The Obama Administration has
    not shown that it has the resolve or the ideological capacity to meet
    that challenge.”]

    Without Asking Congress, Obama
    Puts US Troops on Syrian Border..

    US Troops Sent to Jordan



  • bg


    re: #53 – page 3 October 23, 2012 at 5:01 pm bg

    Deal promising military presence in Mali

    [Analysts believe the resolution, which may pass within the next 30 days, calls for members to provide military training and equipment to halt the spread of jihadists in the western portion of the continent.

    The object of concern is al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, which not only is threatening Mali but some of its neighbors, including Algeria and Mauritania. AQIM already is in control of the northern portion of Mali – the Azawad region — with international efforts under way to take it back.


    Until recently, the U.S. has had troops in Mali but has had to pull them out due to the increasing political turmoil in Mali’s capital of Bamako. As a result, there are fears that the northern portion of Mali will come increasingly under the influence of AQIM and become a new sanctuary for international terrorism.]

    Exactly what is Trump’s Obama ‘bombshell’

    [At the time, he told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News: “Yes, I believe that we will end up in a war with Iran because I think Obama views that as politically good for him. … I have said for a year and a half that in the end, somewhere before the election we will end up in a form of war with Iran, and I think he’s doing it for political reasons.”]

    October 23, 2012

    Secretary Clinton should bar Imran Khan from entering the U.S

    [“Secretary Hillary Clinton needs to revoke the U.S. visa granted to Imran Khan, founder of the political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf.

    Imran Khan is an anti-American politician who regularly defends the Taliban and justifies its action as “Jihad.” In June 2011 he stated that “Confronting the U.S. won’t destroy us (Pakistan). Look at Iran. What have they been able to do with Iran, a country that does not even have nuclear weapons?”

    Khan is scheduled to speak at a fundraising dinner and Eid celebration in New York on October 26. In a promotional e-mail, the American organizers of the event claim “All the money raised will be used to change the political as well as social structure of Pakistan by implementing the law across the board, Insha’Allah (Allah be willing).”

    The “law” Imran Khan wishes to implement in Pakistan is a medieval interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence, whose application is often devoid of spirituality and compassion. For example, Imran Khan is on record stating “As Muslims we are bound by Sharia and if the Taliban are enforcing that, we should welcome it, not be fearful of it.”

    The U.S. Embassy made a significant error in granting this Islamist leader a visa and Secretary Clinton should exert the power of her position and revoke the visa immediately. Granting individuals like Khan access to the U.S. to fundraise is against the interest of the people of Pakistan and the national security interests of the U.S.”]


  • bg


    oops, typo..

    re: #55 October 23, 2012 at 5:11 pmbg

    re: #54 – page 3 October 23, 2012 at 5:01 pm bg


  • A_Nonny_Mouse

    President Long-Range-Drone-Kill thinks that *EVERYTHING* in the military has been (or SHOULD BE) upgraded to “blinking targets/ images on computer screens” so that war can be “civilized” beyond the need for all that icky human-to-human savagery.

    He didn’t learn a damn thing growing up under Islam, did he?

  • Pingback: Your post-post debate wrap up! UPDATED! Obama camp worried about Ohio? « The Daley Gator()

  • Donk

    Today the Marine Corps has 175,000 bayonets.

    In WW1 the US drafted 4,000,000 men. Presumably they had more than 200K bayonets.

    So we have fewer today than back then. Hopefully Romney can restore our former glory.

  • Uncle Philip

    I was a surprised by the debate. As a viewer watching from Australia, I wanted to see how Pres. Obama would distinguish himself from the policies of George Bush–it seems like he has stuck to Bush’s timelines, tactics and policies. He didn’t show himself to differ from Bush last night, and neither did Romney.

  • bg


    Uncle Philip #60 October 23, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    yeah, no difference, right.. 🙄

    God Bless President Bush!!

    more here & here, and juts about everywhere..


  • bg


    October 23, 2012

    Highest Responsibility


  • Hank

    That would be the Marine Corpse?

  • Uncle Philip


    I wasn’t criticising Bush, I was just observing that the timelines BUSH established have been followed by Obama, Gitmo never got closed the way Obama said it would, trials didn’t happen in NY…I could go on and on. Obama kept virtually none of the foreign policy promises he made in 2008–the ones that got him the Nobel PP and presumably millions of dollars!

    p.s. replying with a few links making fun of Biden, or even pointing out that Obama doesn’t attend foreign policy briefings, doesn’t really get to the issue of policy, which was what I was commenting on.

  • Donnertparty

    U.S. Army troops in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t use bayonets because bayonets don’t fit on most of the weapons they carry. Marines still use bayonets because they are, well, Marines. Ask an active duty Marine about the last time he or she used a bayonet in combat — not on parade, but in actual combat. Look, the last bayonet charge of U.S. troops was 50 years or more ago in Korea. Point is that Romey doesn’t know much about modern warfare — the Navy doesn’t need more combat vessels. In the future, the Navy may need different types of vessels, but that doesn’t mean more hulls in the water.

  • Pingback: Bring on the Marines, Bayonets, and the Calvary « 3 Quarters Today()

  • Liberal

    Yeah, just look at that guy stabbing that spare tire! God only knows how we would react if we face a sudden threat of tires! How would we repel such a charge, if not by bayonets?

    Sure, we haven’t had an actual bayonet charge since 1952, and sure, our forces in the Mideast aren’t even issued them, but still, we MIGHT be attacked by spare tires, and where would we be then!?


  • bg



    [The Army said today it has 419,155 bayonets in its inventory. The
    Marine Corps has another 195,334 bayonets that it bought in 2004
    and it plans on buying 175,061 more bayonets this year. A Marine
    official says it’s not accurate to add the two totals together as the
    new ones will include replacements for ones already in service as
    well as additional stocks.

    Bayonets are standard issue for Marines deployed to combat areas,
    though they don’t necessarily carry them with them when they’re
    on patrol.

    Several soldiers who spoke to ABC News said that deploying with
    bayonets to Iraq and Afghanistan varied from unit to unit. While
    not a requirement one soldier said they were available if needed.]


  • bg


    Uncle Philip #64 October 23, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    okay, whatever, but here you go anyways..

    Bush’s finest moment on Iraq: SOFA, not the surge

    Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s

    Obama, Romney battle over Iran, Syria, horses and bayonets

    please listen again, i’m am certain
    they do not have the same policy..


  • Uncle Philip


    This from YOUR link is exactly MY point:

    “All U.S. troops, except for 159 uniformed troops and officers as well as a marine guard in the US embassy in Baghdad, will be out of Iraq before December 31, 2011, as required by the Status of Forces Agreement President Bush made with Iraq.

    “The Democrats can trumpet the Obama Iraq withdrawal all they want, but it was accomplished right on schedule — a schedule established by President Bush, not Obama.”

    Bush said out by end of 2011: Obama didn’t get them out till the end of 2011.

    Thus Obama’s policy in this instance didn’t differ from Bush’s. Maybe I was too subtle in my criticism of Obama. I’ll try again: O won election by saying things would be different from W. He continues to cite the “flawed policies” of W. But in the end, his policies aren’t very different. Consider, for example, your own article about the withdrawal from Iraq. In the end, Obama did it on Bush’s timetable.

  • Pingback: Hump Day Report: How To Self-Impale On a Bayonet « Hump Day Report()

  • Jason

    While I concede that it’s likely the president doesn’t know much about how combat works, he never said we no longer use bayonets. It’s possible that its not true that we have fewer today than in 1916. But it’s indisputable that bayonets have a far smaller role in modern combat than in the trench warfare the USA was preparing for in 1916. Obama’s point was that the nature of warfare has changed, and he was correct. If you insist on being a stickler and looking at the numbers, I’d be interested to know what the deployed number of actual bayonets is (this should not include KA-BARs, which some people like to call bayonets for some reason). Because I’m pretty sure the last major bayonet charge was by a ghurka unit in the Korean War.

  • Pingback: Horses and Bayonets « saneromeo()