l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Do we have more or fewer bayonets now than in 1916?
In last night's debate, President Obama mocked Mitt Romney after Romney
pointed out that the US Navy is smaller today than anytime since World War
One.
Leave aside the kindergarten-level snarkiness of Obama's reply overall ("we
also have these things called aircraft carriers"), let's just focus on
bayonets.
Here are the facts.
As 1916 opened, the US Army's total size was about 110,000 troops. The
Marine Corps was minuscule since the Marines were still seen then as a
raiding or expeditionary force rather than a major land combatant force.
In 1916, the Congress passed the National Defense Act that doubled the Army
to 220,000 (rounded slightly). The USMC was marginally affected.
So a compromise was passed in May 1916, as the war raged on and Berlin
was debating whether America was so weak it could be ignored. The army was
to double in size to 11,300 officers and 208,000 men, with no reserves, and
a National Guard that would be enlarged in five years to 440,000 men.
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.
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.
And so once again:
The good prof. Jacobson points out of Obama's snitty reply,
It is was the triumph of zingers over reason, a fitting tribute to the
age of Obama, and a reflection of how out-of-touch the left has become.
Here is something else we have less of which I think will be much more
determinative of the outcome of the election, the percentage of People
Participating in the Workforce.
Keep laughing at the zingers, it’s working so well.
So here ya go:
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-Z-V2dratgp0/UIbLQTy21YI/AAAAAAAADs8/vpgQj
Bayonet-counting.jpg |
|
