'Horses and bayonets' shows Obama's debate strategy

He was making a point about changes in the military, Blackpartisan. He was essentially stating that instead of a cavalry or even WWII level technology we have unmanned drones, robotics, smart weapons, etc.

The Office of Naval Research will from time to time put out press releases of research projects--like DARPA's robot cheetah. By the time WE see it the practical use for it has already been slated or is fielded already.

Pretty soon, there won't be a need for decent men to get blown up in EOD defusing and ameliorating explosives there will be robots to do it. We will have unmanned submarines like drones. YOU just won't know about it until it is already in the field.

So, please, keep up the partisan diatribe and ignore the statement being made.

 

I cannot imagine a more scarey world, than when robots can autominously kill humans - I fear for our humanity and slightly for our survival in this case.

 

A rightie calling Obama's remarks nasty and disrespectful is something we must take very seriously! How that Communist, Muslim, Kenyan-born Boy King can get away with being disrespectful is a real concern.

 

I don't think it'd ever be autonomous. There will always be a human behind the controls.

 

That's what I don't get. These people have been using the NASTIEST language against Obama. Often times with no regard to what the words actually mean about the issues... and yet they can't take a little humiliation on the issues.

 

Dude, you have no idea. Seeing the DARPA cheetah robot scared the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of me.

 

I'm with you. George C Scott in the movie Patton had a few lines about push button war. Something like "no one is is killed,no glory, nothing is reaffirmed, I'm glad I won't be alive to see it". Or maybe even better was that star trek where people have to report to disintegration booths after virtual attacks. We must never take the horror out of war was the moral or we will be much more likely to engage in it.

 

I saw that, incredible technology, scarey as a weapon. The further that a human being is from the eyes of the person he's killing, the more danger this planet is in. We are hard wired to not kill other humans, the statistics of war from Napolian to Iraq2 show this. We should take the hint and stop removing ourselves from the business end, as a check and balance.

It wasn't that long ago that Kings who made the decision to go to war, lead there men into battle, they would have to thrust a sword into the eyes of the opponent. Now we have drones, tomorrow autominous robots. We are heading away from peace, not towards it.

 

My concern is not a war in which two sides meet with their respective robotic armies. My concern is a cutting edge country, taking robots to the 3rd world, which will happen long before a face to face (LED to LED) conflict.

 

I believe you are wrong. I think Romney has a clear lead in unbiased polls. His advisors probably informed him of that, and told him to play it close to the vest.

 

Romney was actually sounding of to the Navy that if he is elected there will be business for the Navy ship building in Virginia. Romney have been consistent in increasing military spending that seem to be focus on the army and airforce, so now he brought in the Navy.

 

I agree with that also. The developed world will be sending out our little robots to kill the 3rd world. Many would say that was awesome. Guess we would not.

 

There will be ship building in Maine and Mississippi, you mean.

 

Obama was "nasty" to Romney???? Have you not seen the last two debates???? Romney is the King of nastiness! He speaks in the most condescending, disrespectful way I've ever seen in any Presidential debate! Now you want to criticize Obama for punching back at the arrogant bully? Oh friggin' vay!

....and yeah...1916???? Gimme a break!! We didn't have drones or submarines or nuclear powered aircraft carriers, or supersonic jets, or advanced satellites in 1916 either...what a retarded comparison to begin with!.....His attempt to categorize the military as something comparative to 1916 was an epic fail!!!!...and on and on and on! BUT...Romney wants to be infantile and count ships from 1916 and make hay about it??????


What a disconnected group of whack jobs the right wing is! Clueless....I can't believe the mentality of GOP/Fox watchers. The warped logic used to defend this guy is beyond comprehension. It is no wonder our society is so screwed up......Sheezus H. Khrist!!!! Stop the planet and let me off!!!!

 

And where exactly do you think this fleet will be patrolling? The US coast? Give me a break - he's going to use it to police the world.

 

So in the future when crazy bastards gain power and elect to kill people whole sale we should just let it happen? Why? Because the victims are a bit browner than us?

 

I am definitely in the middle, and the horses comment was the best part of the debate by far, best response to the idiot who campaigns of promises of cutting spending while at the same time moans about less ships, - it's also the only part where you couldn't help but notice the audience burst in laughter. good job traitor Obama

 

They'll be park at the docks just like the thousands of tanks and jets park ideling.

 

Mr. President, the Marines still use bayonets in their training and in their combat operations.

The Taliban were overthrown in Afghanistan by special forces riding horses.

Really, as Commander-in-Chief, you should know that bayonets and horses are not obsolete, and probably never will be.

And you insulted Romney unnecessarily when you explained to him what an aircraft carrier is and what a nuclear submarine is.

That was not very Presidential of you to show such personal contempt towards a man who has not harmed you in any way except to oppose you in this election.

It makes us think you're not a very good diplomat for the United States in your dealings with our allies.

You have already shown plenty of contempt for the Prime Minister of Israel, who wanted to talk to you about critically important issues such as the threat from a nuclear Iran.

Instead, you appeared on "Late Night" with David Letterman and on "The View."

 

When did Obama say the military does not use any bayonets and horses?

 

This is obviously a duplicate thread. Why isn't it combined with the last thread of almost exactly the same title that has already had dozens of answers?

The OP of this thread is not any more clever than that of the last thread. . .Why repeat the same dumb statement?

Obama NEVER stated that we don't use ANY bayonets anymore. . .just that they are not as numerous (or efficient, compared to newer technology) than they were in the past. . .just like ships!

 

Obama said we have fewer bayonets and horses in our military than we did in 1916, implying that bayonets and horses are obsolete.

I would like to know if its actually true that the military has fewer bayonets and horses than 1916.

My guess is "no" as to bayonets, but "yes" as to horses. But Obama probably never looked into the truth of this claim, did he?

 

A bayonet is a low-tech weapon that will kill you just as dead as the latest gadget built by Lockheed that costs millions of dollars.

 

If only we could round up all the horses from farmers, we could win in Afghanistan I swear. as the president it's the first thing I would do. not enough horses = defeat = liberals happy.