Printable View
You literally don't know what you're talking about. This has no bearing on my post. :shrug:Quote:
Oh look a meaningless abstraction, your specialty. Supposed "public and neutral" media outlets are generally the first to be swallowed up by your "tyrants". I hesitate to even say that as tyrant is such a broad term.
I get the feeling that this was just how Romney wanted things to go. He came off as reasonable and dedicated to peace, and more coherent about his vision. His comments on china were more reasonably than anything said by either side in the previous debates, regardless of the currency manipulator idea.
I felt like Obama degraded himself with some of his contemptuous smears but I have no idea how that came across to other people...I wouldn't think that going for "wrong and reckless" when Romney appears the opposite of reckless would work...and I wouldn't think that accusing him of dishonesty and being all over the map would work well either...seems like people would trust their own impression of what Romney said during the debate itself.
I only watched the first 10 minutes or so, but it was surprising to see a GOP candidate tell a Democratic President 'You can't kill your way out of a problem'. A good critique of Obama's dealings with Islamists as well, to bad Romeny is too aggressive on foreign policy.
Also, nice move on Romney's part mentioning Osama before Obama could.
CR
That was exactly the kind of performance I was hoping for. I'm extremely happy with tonight. Just over 2 weeks to tell if aggression on economic policy and steadfast and nuanced foreign policy positions are what Americans are looking for. Romney just needed to be perceived as matching the former Senator who has a political science/foreign affairs degree and 4 years being Commander in Chief in order to do well in this debate. I believe that an objective view of the debate will show that he did this. He needed to avoid scaring Americans into thinking that he was a neo-con looking to plunge us into another war. He did it. Americans today are focused on an overhaul of our economic system and how we relate to the world in this way. They are less focused on military threats at the moment, but never want to lose sight of them. I think Mitt Romney has been successful in his late October narrative thus far.
Obama is such a snarky jagoff.
And just for the record the US military probably has more bayonets now in than it did in 1916 when it was minuscule in size.
I dunno I suppose he won if your one of the kinds of people who like when these things get snarky. Personally, I don't like it and I thought they both got a little snarky. I love shots but not when they are delivered with the panache of a teenage girl.
I watched it and I fail to see how Romney can claim Obama is weak if he ends essentially wanting to do the same things as Obama in foreign policy??
Is declaring China a currency fixer on 'day 1' in Obama's plans?
Have you been talking to Vuk, again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
The Marines still occasionally get issued bayonets, although the number of them being actually used functionally in combat is non existent. They may affix them, but they rarely use them
The Army may have bayonets, but we do not use them.
And for the record, we do still use horses. SF uses horses and donkeys as pack animals in the mountains.
So if we are going to argue about 100% total accuracy in the statements, then Obama was wrong, as 1% still use those things.
If we are going to generalize and ask if this is true, for the most part, then Obama is right.
Obviously I understand his actual point as I am sure most people do. Like I said his snarkiness (as well as romney) is something I find distasteful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
I think this was a prepared statement he was likely sitting on. I also find it an annoying statement as it seemed at the time as well as now very petty. My snarky and petty response to the snarky and petty statement was that we do in fact likely have more bayonets than we did then. All Obama said is we have fewer. If he wanted to say we use them less he should have. He should have known such a smack in the face of romaney would be attacked pettily by the opposition.Quote:
"Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."
This is all irrelevant because it has nothing to do with Obama's point.
So true. This is a sad election if one wants to support something besides a very aggressive and violent foreign policy because you've noone to support.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Though at least with Romney in charge the dems might remember they used to oppose war.
And Obama should be kicked out on principle (kill list, NDAA act, drone warfare, citizen assassination).
CR
So:
Round 1 10:8 Romney, Round 1 (undercard) 10:9 Ryan, Round 2 10:9 Obama, Round 3 10;10 Draw.
Is that enough points to push key uncommitted voters into the Romney camp, or is it not enough of a points performance to dethrone the champ?
I am highly skeptical about the impact of debates. I remember the first Bush-Kerry debate, in which our sitting President was at times inarticulate, at other times completely speechless. It was a devastatingly bad performance by the incumbent. And it didn't move the needle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Then again, this is a strange election that doesn't appear to be playing by precedent, so ... meh. Who knows?
:laugh4: that wont happen when all those businessmen that Romney supposedly has a better handle on tucking into bed at night would :daisy: themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
Dumping rocks in your own port is not an economic policy Romney will follow.
The first debate seemed to coincide with a major momentum swing in Romney's favor. I suspect the Obama campaign was successful in painting Romney as an out-of-touch elitist up until that point. Once he showed himself to be articulate/competent in the first debate, Romney suddenly seemed like a viable alternative for voters who are on the fence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It was a much different economic picture for Bush v Kerry. With unemployment still around 8 percent, it's surprising that Obama isn't doing worse...
rightQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
He's taking us back to water's edge foreign policy. Differ in important details, not in substance. You guys honestly can't see how agreeing with some of your opponents on some issues/actions might be both reasonable and politically advantageous? You wonder why your representatives are having a hard time pulling their heads from their arses? (goes for you Irish, too)Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Fun fact from the CSM on 'horses and bayonets'...
Bayonets are still issued and are required training for marines. :laugh4:Quote:
Well, the bayonet thing is easy to elucidate. The Marines and the Army both still issue rifle-mounted knives to serve as hand weapons, utility knives, saws, and all-around handy items.
Bayonet training is an integral part of the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, which every recruit must pass. During such training, recruits fix OKC-3S bayonets underneath the muzzles of their rifles, effectively turning it into a spear. They’re taught thrusts, jabs, and slashes, according to a Marine public affairs account of such training. They then must use these techniques on a dummy-filled course intended to simulate close combat.
The article is wrong about the Army.
Besides, the president said, IIRC, that we had fewer. He didn't say we didn't use them.
And getting issued something and actually using it in combat are two different things. I don't see why this is even a topic of discussion,
Arent bayonets used in combatives now and not on a bayonet course?
The Army phased out bayonet training for BCT around 2009 or 2010. LAst I checked, there is still a bayonet course offered in Infantry AIT if the training commander wants to use it.
A unit commander can request bayonets if he wants. He may or may not get them, as the bulk of them have been processed through DLA and auctioned off online.
We have other effective blades issued now, notably the spring blade and the tomohawk (not kidding). Bayonets are not suited for insurgency wars where the enemies main weapon is bombs against armored vehicles.
You can count the bayonet kills/injuries vs badguys in Iraq and Afghanistan on one hand.
It all boils down to commanders discretion. But a bayonet is not standard issue in the army. Marines still use them because they are psychopaths.
How many marines are there today? What was the size of the army in 1916? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
I know of a noted bayonet charge by the British in Basra, 2004 that was said to have killed about 20 Mahdi militiamen....Quote:
You can count the bayonet kills/injuries vs badguys in Iraq and Afghanistan on one hand.
Edit: Looks like the Pentagon has well over half a million bayonets.
Obama was right about horses though- there's alot less of them than there was in 1916.
Sorry, I forgot to link it.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
In May 2004, approximately 20 British troops in Basra were ambushed and forced out of their vehicles by about 100 Shiite militia fighters. When ammunition ran low, the British troops fixed bayonets and charged the enemy. About 20 militiamen were killed in the assault without any British deaths.
The bayonet charge appeared to succeed for three main reasons. First, the attack was the first of its kind in that region and captured the element of surprise. Second, enemy fighters probably believed jihadist propaganda stating that coalition troops were cowards unwilling to fight in close combat, further enhancing the element of surprise. Third, the strict discipline of the British troops overwhelmed the ability of the militia fighters to organize a cohesive counteraction.
The effects of this tactical action in Basra are not immediately applicable elsewhere, but an important dominant theme emerges regarding the need to avoid predictable patterns of behavior within restrictive rules of engagement. Commanders should keep adversaries off balance with creative feints and occasional shows of force lest they surrender the initiative to the enemy.
Actually pretty well known I am surprised you didn't hear of it. I think they ran out of ammo then rushed them, pretty crazy stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
All Obama said was we had fewer. We do not. Therefore his snarky little comment was wrong.
where was the fact checking?
OBAMA IS LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
I continue to be stunned by the things Republican Senate candidates say. It's as though, in their heart of hearts, they don't really want to be elected. Or something.
Asked whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, Mourdock replied that while he's "struggled" with that question for a long time, "I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Man, says Margaret Hartmann at New York, "one might think that after all the trouble Todd Akin caused for the GOP by sharing his thoughts on 'legitimate rape,' Republican candidates across the country would be choosing their words on the topic extremely carefully."
The Brits have always been partial to their bayonets. :yes:
What does an US Army issued tomahawk look like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Apparently something like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
https://i.imgur.com/wYe0d.png
I knew of this, and I wasn't counting it, because they were not US soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
ZOMG I was proven wrong because we have a bunch of bayonets in backstock that we never use. Because the DOD has never bought useless things or kept outdated inventory, I swear those soft skin humvees and HCLOS trucks and SINGARS and all those bayonets can be used somewhere in some alternate universe. I swear that purple, ergonomic litter that came with my MATV was put to good use rather than using my standard litter, and I swear I used my multitool shovel that they issue and make you carry into Afghanistan. I swear.
While we are on this topic of useless things....
This:
http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/...y-in-Lima.html
Although I didn't see it in this article, on several of Ryans rounds on the talk shows he discussed how closing this factory would put American lives in danger. This is the crap that bugs me. We are winding down 2 wars, we don't need as many toys, and I am sure Ryan and Romneys vision have nothing to do with contracts and cronies. Nothing at all. Yes, I know Obama essentially did the same thing with green companies and the GM bailout, and I didn't like that either. But someone may want to point out to Ryan that we are not using many tanks in Afghanistan, so the conclusion that American lives are in danger because of scaled back production is pulling-the-patriot-hearstrings crap that politicians are so good at.
Christ these things piss me off
We need deep cuts in the budgets
But not where I need the votes
How do people not see through this tripe?
Which is why voting should be restricted.