News USA Final 2012 Presidential Debate (#3) Observations

[collinsmark]

'Guess I'll start the thread for this one too.

Use this thread for commentary on the 3rd (final) Presidential Debate. It starts at 9PM EDT Oct 22nd. Please keep debate of issues to a minimum and focus on observations relevant to the debate itself.

Have a nice day :)

I'll be watching it streaming from here http://abcnews.go.com/live. There are numerous other sources on the Internet that one can stream the debate too.

 

[collinsmark]

Tonight's debate snacks include,

• Tuna salad sandwich on "hoagie" roll.
• 1/3 of a large bag of barbeque potato chips (with ridges).
• Ramen noodles.

The semi-traditional, presidential burrito has been canceled due to traditional heartburn.

The soft, cushy projectiles are armed and ready.

 

[JonDE]

The semi-traditional, presidential burrito has been canceled due to traditional heartburn.

Leftover meatloaf, s'mores and pepsi.

I promise to try and sit through the whole debate, which I was unable to do the first two times. I will fail at this, but at least I will try.

 

[lisab]

I've been really busy so I haven't been listening to pundits much lately, so I don't know what they're saying about it. But it seems to me, given the tight race and late date, their biggest threat is to themselves - "First, do no harm!" There's very little time to make up for any serious stumble, so I bet both will be pretty cautious.

 

[JonDE]

I've been really busy so I haven't been listening to pundits much lately, so I don't know what they're saying about it. But it seems to me, given the tight race and late date, their biggest threat is to themselves - "First, do no harm!" There's very little time to make up for any serious stumble, so I bet both will be pretty cautious.

I disagree in part. With how close this election is, whoever wins this debate could very likely turn into our next president, they both need to win in the worst kind of way. I expect them to throw caution to the wind.

Although, I could very well be wrong.

 

[rootX]

Romney coming out as stronger considering body language and voice.

comment:
Romney wants to destabilize region or whole world by helping Israel attack Syria.

 

[OmCheeto]

Just watched an up and coming zombie killing movie, in preparation for tonight's discussion.

That is all, for the moment...

 

[Mentalist]

Why are they talking about domestic policy?

 

[rootX]

Romney is losing badly IMO.

 

[SixNein]

Why are they talking about domestic policy?

They might as well talk about football for all of the information their sharing...

it's going something like..
"We have placed nasty sanctions against Iran."
"But i'll place super duper nasty sanctions against Iran."

zzzZZzz

 

[Mentalist]

This is his weakest area so it is better to not lose horribly and at least come out without too much damage. It is much better to be overly cautious than make horrendous errors, although the 1916 navy remark was not a good point in my opinion.

 

[Skrew]

I am puzzled by the amount of times Israel was brought up.

 

[Mentalist]

Drone question was asked, and Mitt Romney did not bring up the fact that Obama did some serious drone strikes resulting in the deaths of many civilians and a drone strike on a U.S. civilian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/us-citizens-drone-strike-deaths

Come on Romney, you should have done some research! This would have definitely netted you some points among progressives. Instead he agreed with the president. I am calling it, Obama won this debate. Throw in the white towel.

 

[Jack21222]

I loved the bit about bayonets and horses and "this isn't a game of Battleship."

 

[Angry Citizen]

Obama won the debate, and he also succeeded in making a connection to domestic, economic policy that I think Romney failed to do properly. Romney, as in the last debate, had some good moments, but most of them were flat out lies.

The "Apology Tour" comment was handled well by Obama, especially when he mentioned going to a Holocaust memorial in Israel.

The "Smallest Navy" comment was pretty much wiped off the board with Obama's zinger about Battleship.

Romney's repeated assertions that "Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon" lost its bite. It came across as desperate, especially after the first few times he said it and Obama knocking it down each time.

Today was not a good night for Romney. Luckily for Romney, a bad night on foreign policy is not that bad of a night in this election.

 

[Vorde]

Romney's repeated assertions that "Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon" lost its bite. It came across as desperate, especially after the first few times he said it and Obama knocking it down each time.

I completely agree. In fact I think several of his 'sayings' have lost their bite, though I'd say the same to Obama.

 

[CAC1001]

Obama was wrong on the status of forces agreement and also on his claim that Romney was not for federal help for the auto companies as part of his bankruptcy plan: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0 Romney says at the end:

The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

The "Smallest Navy" comment was pretty much wiped off the board with Obama's zinger about Battleship.

IMO, that was rather petty and something that should have been a quite easy counter for Romney. Obama was implying that these are modern times, and thus it is okay for the Navy to be as small as it is, because we don't fight wars in the way that we used to and have much more advanced technology now, and therefore can get by with a smaller Navy. That reminds me of the Vietnam War, when it was decided that these are modern times, and modern fighter planes don't dog fight anymore, so therefore, no machine guns need be on them. The result was our fighter planes initially (F4 Phantoms) then began getting into fights with North Vietnamese fighters, where they very much needed a machine gun (later F4s were equipped with them).

The idea that these are modern times, and thus X form of warfare is a thing of the past and Y form of weapon system is no longer needed, is incredibly dangerous reasoning, as nobody knows what the future requirements will be. Compare 1982 to 2012. Now go twenty, thirty years into the future. We could find that we seriously regret having shrank the Navy. No, we don't need a Cold War-sized Navy, but we shouldn't have a tiny one either.

 

[Angry Citizen]

No, we don't need a Cold War-sized Navy, but we shouldn't have a tiny one either.

Who said we should have a "tiny" Navy? And who do you think is going to attack us such that we need more than eleven carrier battle groups? Russia and China each have, what, one carrier battle group?

This is the problem I have with people who try to scare others about having a "weak military". We could cut our military by 50% and still have the most powerful arsenal on the planet. Plus we will always have nuclear weapons, which renders any conventional attack by any threat on the planet moot.

 

[JonDE]

Obama was wrong on the status of forces agreement and also on his claim that Romney was not for federal help for the auto companies as part of his bankruptcy plan: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0 Romney says at the end:IMO, that was rather petty and something that should have been a quite easy counter for Romney. Obama was implying that these are modern times, and thus it is okay for the Navy to be as small as it is, because we don't fight wars in the way that we used to and have much more advanced technology now, and therefore can get by with a smaller Navy. That reminds me of the Vietnam War, when it was decided that these are modern times, and modern fighter planes don't dog fight anymore, so therefore, no machine guns need be on them. The result was our fighter planes initially (F4 Phantoms) then began getting into fights with North Vietnamese fighters, where they very much needed a machine gun (later F4s were equipped with them).

Yet, America has 13X the tonnage in the sea then any other country. If our navy is small, that makes every other nations teeny tiny. Most of the countries with a top 10 navy are our allies.

In reality, America's navy could fight a half decent fight against the rest of the world's navy combined. We would lose, but we would give them a run for their money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy

Edit: actually I'm not even sure we would lose

 

[CAC1001]

Who said we should have a "tiny" Navy? And who do you think is going to attack us such that we need more than eleven carrier battle groups? Russia and China each have, what, one carrier battle group?

Our current Navy is tiny by historical standards, and Obama was making the argument that this size is okay, that these are modern times, and just as we have fewer bayonets and horses today, we also have fewer ships (as if to say that we can get by with this level of ships just fine). My point is that line of reasoning can be dangerous as no one knows with any certainty what the future requirements will be for our military.

As for who will attack us, I am not claiming anyone will attack us, I am saying that the geopolitical situation could get to a point where a conflict could occur that requires a larger navy than we have now.

This is the problem I have with people who try to scare others about having a "weak military". We could cut our military by 50% and still have the most powerful arsenal on the planet. Plus we will always have nuclear weapons, which renders any conventional attack by any threat on the planet moot.

If you are talking purely defensive purposes, as in defending the homeland of the U.S., then yes, the U.S. could cut its military by 50% and still have the most powerful. But in terms of power projection capability or the ability to underwrite global trade and security as our military does now, cutting it by that amount would be devastating.

That's another area Obama was over-simplifying as I see it. He said that we spend more on defense than the next ten nations combined. That's because the next ten nations combined barely spend anything. No nation, aside from the U.S., has any real power projection capability, the only exception being the United Kingdom and even they, now, would have a hard time pulling off something like the Falklands War again.

There are two definitions of "weak" regarding the U.S. military:

1) Is the military strong enough to protect the U.S. itself from attacks by foreign countries or invasion

2) Is the military strong enough to do its job of being the anchor that maintains global peace and security

On nuclear weapons, that's fine for defending the homeland, but the issue of U.S. security is more complex than just defending the physical U.S. homeland. We aren't just talking American security, we're talking the security of the free world.

 

[CAC1001]

Yet, America has 13X the tonnage in the sea then any other country.

Again, that's because everyone else barely spends anything. It isn't as if they all spend a reasonable, large amount on defense and have power projection capability, but the U.S. massively over-spends on maintaining some massive, way-oversized military that it doesn't really need.

If our navy is small, that makes every other nations teeny tiny.

Yes, most other country's navy is teeny-tiny.

Most of the countries with a top 10 navy are our allies.

Right now, sure, but I'm talking the future. Twenty to thirty years may sound short, but in geopolitical issues, you can see big changes. For example, imagine trying back in 1982, thirty years ago, to project what kind of military the U.S. would need for 2012.

In reality, America's navy could fight a half decent fight against the rest of the world's navy combined. We would lose, but we would give them a run for their money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy

Edit: actually I'm not even sure we would lose

Yes, but again, I'm talking future scenarios.

 

[rootX]

Pakistan is an interesting case here,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

On more related note, a really good point from BBC:
The debate was depressing in that foreign policy seemed pretty much to equal the Middle East. Israel must have been mentioned dozens of times.

China got a brief look-in, in the last quarter of an hour, but mainly as a trade rival. I didn't hear Europe mentioned at all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20038363

 

[Pythagorean]

My point is that line of reasoning can be dangerous as no one knows with any certainty what the future requirements will be for our military.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem like a good line of reasoning you're pursuing about the navy. Maybe there is a good line of reasoning somewhere, but you're going to to have to be more descriptive. "No one knows with any certainty what the future requirements will be for our military" is not an argument for why we would need a bigger navy in particular. That line of reasoning could apply equally to missile silos or helicopters, or military satellites.

 

[russ_watters]

From CNN, before the debate:

Mitt Romney is planning to shed the scrappy in-your-face debate strategy from last week's town hall and replace it Monday night with a calmer demeanor - someone voters can imagine as commander-in-chief, CNN has learned.

"I don't think this is necessarily a debate where you're going to see point-for-point scoring," Romney adviser Dan Senor told CNN.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...kes-a-good-commander-in-chief/?iref=allsearch

While that's a good strategy for avoiding mistakes and not looking like a jerk (as lisa said), debates are about point scoring, so I don't think that tactic was a good idea. He may have succeeded in making himself look like a nicer guy, but a nice guys finish second. Bad idea.

Still, there is one possible angle for upside for him: if more people favored him in the debate than favored him vs Obama on foreign policy before the debate (and I think they did), it could still result in picking up votes.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem like a good line of reasoning you're pursuing about the navy. Maybe there is a good line of reasoning somewhere, but you're going to to have to be more descriptive. "No one knows with any certainty what the future requirements will be for our military" is not an argument for why we would need a bigger navy in particular. That line of reasoning could apply equally to missile silos or helicopters, or military satellites.

Yes, it could apply universally. Aren't you arguing against your point?

The issue with saying our military is strong enough or technically advanced enough is that we have a duty to protect our soldiers, sailors and airmen as best we can and people have a low tolerance for watching them die unnecessarily (see the MRAP/Hummer story from the Gulf War). Now clearly, funding can't be infinite and not all wars are well chosen, but our forces need to be large enough to meet whatever goals we have -- and we should never stop advancing them technically.

Equally important is when to use them. I think our Navy is fine the way it is (sizewise), but when we don't even have the stones to use it to solve a relatively minor piracy problem, that's a historically unprecedented level of impotence.

 

[D H]

Obama was implying that these are modern times, and thus it is okay for the Navy to be as small as it is, because we don't fight wars in the way that we used to and have much more advanced technology now, and therefore can get by with a smaller Navy.

No. You completely missed the point. Our Army doesn't need or want lots of horses and bayonets. One modern tank will take care of army of gnats in short order. Our Navy doesn't need or want hundreds and hundreds of small boats. Suppose you and I have a mock naval battle. I'll let you have the entire 1917 Navy, I'll take just one modern carrier group. Who wins?

Counting the number of troops, or the number of aircraft, or the number of ships is a false metric. Our modern service has chosen killing quality over sheer quantity of troops/aircraft/ships. It's killing power, not number, that counts.

That killing power is expensive. An Arleigh Burke class destroyer costs $1.8 billion each. The newest class of destroyers, with USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) to be the first of the line, will cost $3.3 billion each. Aircraft carriers are even more expensive, $9 billion (estimated) for the new Gerald R. Ford class of carriers. We can't afford hundreds and hundreds of such ships. We don't need hundreds and hundreds of them.

 

[Vanadium 50]

2) Is the military strong enough to do its job of being the anchor that maintains global peace and security

That's an interesting question. Why, for example, hasn't the Navy been used to clear the oceans of Somali pirates? Why have we sent only one ship?

It's been discussed here before, and the answer is that we simply don't have the number of frigates and destroyers needed to do this and to perform other missions like screening carriers. Janes for 1980 said that the US had 30 cruisers, 100 destroyers and 80 frigates. (Including USNR-operated vessels). Today those numbers are 22, 60 and 25. With half as many destroyers and frigates, plus the reduction in cruisers which means that destroyers have to fill their roles, there just isn't the fleet stength to do this.

 

[AlephZero]

No. You completely missed the point. Our Army doesn't need or want lots of horses and bayonets. One modern tank will take care of army of gnats in short order.

Maybe, provided the army of gnats is dumb enough to use 19th century tactics and tries to win set-piece battles.

If the gnats figure out smarter tactics (whether on land in Afghanistan or at sea off Somalia), one modern tank or one modern warship doesn't work so well.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Now that Romney and Ryan have made a clean sweep of the debates, I expect that they will head into Nov. 7 with a slight lead in the polls.

 

[D H]

If the gnats figure out smarter tactics (whether on land in Afghanistan or at sea off Somalia), one modern tank or one modern warship doesn't work so well.

Name one modern warship that didn't fare well against the Somali pirates.

The number of ships taken by those pirates fell by almost half in 2011 compared to 2009 and 2010, and has fallen even more dramatically this year. The pirates are on the run, partly due to interdictions by Naval ships (and not just ours). When a Naval vessel encounters pirates, the pirates lose.

The biggest factor, however, is that merchant ships are starting to carry armed guards. Those pirates had an easy go attacking unarmed ships. That's not the case anymore thanks to insurance companies reassessing their stance against armed guards.

 

[Mentalist]

From CNN, before the debate: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...kes-a-good-commander-in-chief/?iref=allsearch

While that's a good strategy for avoiding mistakes and not looking like a jerk (as lisa said), debates are about point scoring, so I don't think that tactic was a good idea. He may have succeeded in making himself look like a nicer guy, but a nice guys finish second. Bad idea.

Still, there is one possible angle for upside for him: if more people favored him in the debate than favored him vs Obama on foreign policy before the debate (and I think they did), it could still result in picking up votes.

It's fascinating how the mind works. If you're independent and have watched the debates, two of which Romney was aggressive, why would you vote for him because of a calm demeanor in the third debate? That doesn't make sense.

 

[BobG]

I am puzzled by the amount of times Israel was brought up.

Obama's relationship with Israel's Netanyahu was seen as a weakness going in and Obama was obviously trying to preempt that issue by bringing it up as often as possible before Romney did.

Personally, if I were Romney, I would have crossed him up and not brought it up until the very end - and then asked Obama if he were Netanyahu's poodle.

I also think the less time actually spent debating foreign policy, the better for Romney, so the diversions into economic policy were a plus for Romney.

I think the "horses and bayonette" comment went over well (although the issue of naval ships won't go over well in a ship building state such as Virginia).

I still think Obama won this debate overall. The challenger is usually at a disadvantage in foreign policy debates and at least Romney kept it from being a total disaster.

 

[D H]

That's an interesting question. Why, for example, hasn't the Navy been used to clear the oceans of Somali pirates? Why have we sent only one ship?

One ship? We've sent a lot more than one ship. Try task forces 150, 151, and 152.

 

[Jack21222]

Now that Romney and Ryan have made a clean sweep of the debates, I expect that they will head into Nov. 7 with a slight lead in the polls.

 

[D H]

Read Jimmy Snyder's tag line.

 

[Mentalist]

Obama's relationship with Israel's Netanyahu was seen as a weakness going in and Obama was obviously trying to preempt that issue by bringing it up as often as possible before Romney did.

Personally, if I were Romney, I would have crossed him up and not brought it up until the very end - and then asked Obama if he were Netanyahu's poodle.

I also think the less time actually spent debating foreign policy, the better for Romney, so the diversions into economic policy were a plus for Romney.

I think the "horses and bayonette" comment went over well (although the issue of naval ships won't go over well in a ship building state such as Virginia).

I still think Obama won this debate overall. The challenger is usually at a disadvantage in foreign policy debates and at least Romney kept it from being a total disaster.

Obama and Romney were practically foaming at the mouth with their pandering to Israel. So, Romney calling Obama Netanyahu's poodle wouldn't make him look good. If that were to be said, I think, that would be the end of his presidential bid even though it was true.

 

[Alfi]

Name one modern warship that didn't fare well against the Somali pirates.

The Good Ship Lollypop.?? But I don't remember it being mentioned in the debate.

ok now my turn for irrelevant questions.
Name one bully that didn't fare well against the small skinny kid?

I'm not an American. I think this gives me and others like me ( not Americans ) a perspective about American foreign ( as in us ) policies.
A few of us get a little irate when we keep hearing that we ( the rest of the world ) are protected by the US military.
Some of us don't spend the big bucks on the chance we might be invaded. Perhaps we don't live in the same kind of fear that Americans seen to have.

Warships cannot stop and inspect ALL the containers that arrive every day. Adding more warships will not change the weakest points in American defences.
I agree, It's not a 'game of battleships' when talking about foreign policy.

I observed in the debate, talking to other countries leaders is not a Romney goal.

“And so we can be a partner with China. We don’t have to be an adversary in any way, shape or form. We can work with them. We can collaborate with them if they’re willing to be responsible.”

"We don’t have to be an adversary in any way." In any way. Got it. Literally seconds later:

“That’s why on day one I will label them a currency manipulator which allows us to apply tariffs where they’re taking jobs. They’re stealing our intellectual property, our patents, our designs, our technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods.”

This Romney guy is a business man and ONLY a business man.

as Obama said:

“And the fact is while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the Iranian oil sector. So I’ll let the American people decide, judge who’s going to be more effective and more credible when it comes to imposing crippling sanctions.”

The company is called China National Offshore Oil Corporation, and it does, in fact, do business with Iran.
I do not believe Romney will cripple his own investments.Oh, and speaking of intellectual property theft, Romney has investment holdings in Chinese companies that are knee-deep in theft. The Huffington Post reported:

Among them were New Oriental Education and Technology, a company in which the Romneys’ blind trusts invested nearly $60,000. New Oriental is famous for stealing copyrighted U.S. academic tests, and was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars by a Chinese court for it.

The company Romney talked about purchasing in his “47 Percent” video, a Chinese outfit called Global Tech, was also involved in patent theft.

As the president said in the second debate, Romney is the last person who’d get tough on China.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Half in jest, completely in earnest.

 

[D H]

Name one modern warship that didn't fare well against the Somali pirates.

The Good Ship Lollypop.?? But I don't remember it being mentioned in the debate.

ok now my turn for irrelevant questions.

My question was not irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether our Navy is big enough. Romney contends that it isn't based on the false metric of the size of the US Navy in 1916 vs now in terms of number of ships. Someone else raised the issue of Somali pirates, implying that the Navy isn't faring well against them.

I'm not an American. I think this gives me and others like me ( not Americans ) a perspective about American foreign ( as in us ) policies.
A few of us get a little irate when we keep hearing that we ( the rest of the world ) are protected by the US military.

Every country is threatened by that piracy in the Horn of Africa. Many countries, not just the US, provide naval ships to counteract that piracy. Anti-piracy is the primary mission of Combined Task Force 151. Note very well: CTF 151 is currently commanded by the Turkish Navy. It's not just the US that is working to remove these pirates from the seas.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One ship? We've sent a lot more than one ship. Try task forces 150, 151, and 152.

TF-151 has (or had) on US destroyer assigned to it. TF-150 is there, but assigned to the GWOT. Not sure about 152.

 

[russ_watters]

If the gnats figure out smarter tactics (whether on land in Afghanistan or at sea off Somalia), one modern tank or one modern warship doesn't work so well.

I disagree. History is littered with examples where superior technology has created an extreme mismatch, but few if any instances where tactics have been able to significantly mitigate, much less overcome such a mismatch. Lucky for us, there are a large number of modern examples of this. Some are well known (stealth, laser guided bombs, UAVs, night vision), some less so (our tanks vs Saddam Hussein's tanks).

Piracy is such a low-tech endeavor, by such small forces that pirates never stand any chance, should we choose to engage them. When we committed a small number of ships to the effort and then didn't allow those ships to use any of their firepower, it made it a tough battle to win. The pirates' tactical adjustment -- going further out into the ocean -- mitigated the impact of our half-hearted effort, but still made their job harder and less profitable. But this isn't really a good example of either side because our attempt was so half-hearted.

In Afghanistan or even Vietnam, success or failure depends a little on how you measure it. Our enemies there focused on being annoying and never giving up, despite the massive mismatch in capabilities and therefore causalities. They didn't need to kill a lot of us, they just needed to kill a few of us at a time for a long time. Tactics, of course, play a role but that role isn't really significant enough to be applicable to the big picture (strategic level).

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, it could apply universally. Aren't you arguing against your point?

The issue with saying our military is strong enough or technically advanced enough is that we have a duty to protect our soldiers, sailors and airmen as best we can and people have a low tolerance for watching them die unnecessarily (see the MRAP/Hummer story from the Gulf War). Now clearly, funding can't be infinite and not all wars are well chosen, but our forces need to be large enough to meet whatever goals we have -- and we should never stop advancing them technically.

Equally important is when to use them. I think our Navy is fine the way it is (sizewise), but when we don't even have the stones to use it to solve a relatively minor piracy problem, that's a historically unprecedented level of impotence.

I didn't see an argument for increasing the navy in this reply, either.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Now that Romney and Ryan have made a clean sweep of the debates, I expect that they will head into Nov. 7 with a slight lead in the polls.

The consensus is that Romney only won the first debate. It's fine to have blinders on for your candidate, but come on. Stay grounded in reality.

 

[russ_watters]

It's fascinating how the mind works. If you're independent and have watched the debates, two of which Romney was aggressive, why would you vote for him because of a calm demeanor in the third debate? That doesn't make sense.

Agreed. Similarly, Obama's varying demeanor. I heard some analysis this morning that pointed out that Romney agrees with Obama on a lot of foreign policy points. The host suggested that since there aren't many points to be scored if you don't disagree, Romney chose a safe, non-confrontational course. Given that Obama leads Romney in foreign policy polling, even agreeing with Obama and losing the debate can help him by letting people know that he's a viable alternative to Obama. In other words, you don't lose much on foreign policy by electing Romney. Weighed against a perceived significant gain in economics, that could swing a few voters.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I think the "horses and bayonette" comment went over well (although the issue of naval ships won't go over well in a ship building state such as Virginia).

I find this logic to be thin. Just because Virginia has a large contingent of ship-builders doesn't necessarily mean they're all going to vote against Obama for daring to say we don't need as many ships as we used to. For instance, I'm an aspiring aerospace engineer. I plan to enter the space industry. I also support massive cuts to our defense on the order of at least two hundred billion per year. Where are all those people going to go who were formerly employed by Lockheed, Boeing etc building aircraft? Right into my field, like as not. People sometimes do vote against their personal economic interests if they believe it will be in the long term interests of the country.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Agreed. Similarly, Obama's varying demeanor. I heard some analysis this morning that pointed out that Romney agrees with Obama on a lot of foreign policy points. The host suggested that since there aren't many points to be scored if you don't disagree, Romney chose a safe, non-confrontational course. Given that Obama leads Romney in foreign policy polling, even agreeing with Obama and losing the debate can help him by letting people know that he's a viable alternative to Obama. In other words, you don't lose much on foreign policy by electing Romney. Weighed against a perceived significant gain in economics, that could swing a few voters.

I think the charge that Romney is inconsistent may well earn Obama some votes on the subject. Fact is Romney is all over the place with regard to foreign policy. Romney's flip flopping will end up hurting him on November 6th.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not an American. I think this gives me and others like me ( not Americans ) a perspective about American foreign ( as in us ) policies.
A few of us get a little irate when we keep hearing that we ( the rest of the world ) are protected by the US military.

Then perhaps you should tell your politicians that they should increase military spending, so it stops being true!

Some of us don't spend the big bucks on the chance we might be invaded. Perhaps we don't live in the same kind of fear that Americans seen to have.

We don't live in fear of being invaded -- we're the ones with the military. Our military doesn't exist primarily for protecting our shores/borders, it exists primarily for projecting power abroad. Whether you agree that it should or not, yours almost certainly does too (not sure which country you live in...). So when problems happen that the world community decides it wants fixed, the US always has to take the lead. Kosovo, Iraq, Libya -- not to mention aircraft carriers for earthquake and tsunami relief -- these things just don't happen without the US taking the lead. Not even the tiny little Libya no-fly-zone was doable without us leading it last year.

So if you ever agree that there is a time when power projection is or may become necessary, you have two choices: 1) Tell your politicians that you want to increase your military's spending to enable your country to contribute an equal share. 2) Call your big brother the USA to do it for you.

Currently, the only other country that even comes close to meeting such an obligation is the UK.

Warships cannot stop and inspect ALL the containers that arrive every day. Adding more warships will not change the weakest points in American defences.

That's not a military job, that's a Coast Guard/border control job. Militaries exist to fight other militaries, not locally police commerce.

I observed in the debate, talking to other countries leaders is not a Romney goal.

If other countries aren't going to contribute an equal share to foreign power projection, why should we be consulting them for decision-making?

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't see an argument for increasing the navy in this reply, either.

Correct: I made no such argument. I merely pointed out that your reasoning on the issue was flawed.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the charge that Romney is inconsistent may well earn Obama some votes on the subject. Fact is Romney is all over the place with regard to foreign policy. Romney's flip flopping will end up hurting him on November 6th.

It could, yes. At the same time, the irony is that Romney can't profit from Obama's flip-flops and failures on foreign policy, since they mostly ended up going in the direction Americans want. Examples:

-Failing to close 'Gitmo.
-Doing an Afghan surge after criticizing the Bush Iraq surge.
-Extending the patriot act.

 

[Pythagorean]

Correct: I made no such argument. I merely pointed out that your reasoning on the issue was flawed.

Er... no, you set up a strawman and took it down; I figured you were just practicing for the real thing.