Intrade: 70.5% chance Obama will win third debate

[Wezil]

So in essence when they were used circa 2001-2002 they hadn't been used since the last century (3 years?)

I see a TMM argument coming on.

[MRT144]

Who the **** said anything about Battleships except for Obama in a strawman arguement?



A reasonable sounding point except that he never addresses what capabilities are desired or whether they meet the overall strategic needs (ie. how many simultaneous potential theatres of conflict is the Navy anticipated having to support)

I used Battleships as an example of ship types that have been decommissioned because their purpose and role aren't needed.

And he doesn't address it because the point of contention is Romney's thought that we don't have enough ships, period.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And he doesn't address it because the point of contention is Romney's thought that we don't have enough ships, period.

Which wasn't at all addressed by his bayonet and horse answer.

[MRT144]

Which wasn't at all addressed by his bayonet and horse answer.

It is an allusion to other things we don't use as metrics of our battle readiness.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It was neither an allusion nor assessment. It was a cheap one liner (Truly worthy of poly) that allowed the discussion to go forward without having a real discussion on what the expected capabilities are of the navy in the future.

[Dinner]

Romney's foreign policy is very mainstream.

No it is not. Luckily, he changed his entire foreign policy last night so he did sound mainstream though.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Shall we not address this bayonet gap?!

I prefer the board with a Nail in it. [/kang and kodos]

[MRT144]

No it is not. Luckily, he changed his entire foreign policy last night so he did sound mainstream though.

He even agreed with many of Obama's foreign policy decisions at the debate. One's that he disagreed with some time ago.

I just don't get the appeal of Romney. How do you know what he's actually going to do?

[MRT144]

AL QAEDAROMNEY NOW: We’re going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done. I congratulate him on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaeda.
ROMNEY THEN: “I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours [Pakistan]” to get bin Laden. [8/06/2007]
IRANROMNEY NOW: I laid out seven steps, crippling sanctions were number one.And they do work. You’re seeing it right now in the economy. It’s absolutely the right thing to do, to have crippling sanctions. I would have put them in place earlier. But it’s good that we have them.
ROMNEY THEN: But nothing in my view is as serious a failure as [President Obama's] failure to deal with Iran appropriately. This president — this president should have put in place crippling sanctions against Iran, he did not. [02/22/2012]
AFGHANISTANROMNEY NOW: We’ve seen progress over the past several years. The surge has been successful and the training program is proceeding apace. There are now a large number of Afghan Security Forces, 350,000 that are ready to step in to provide security and we’re going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014.
ROMNEY THEN: I stand with the commanders in this regard and have no information that suggests that pulling our troops out faster than that would do anything but put at — at great peril the extraordinary sacrifice that’s been made. This is not time for America to cut and run. [11/22/2011]
CHINAROMNEY NOW: 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.

ROMNEY THEN: [W]e should not fail to recognize that a China that is a prosperous tyranny will increasingly pose problems for us, for its neighbors, and for the entire world. [2/16/12]

How does he really feel about anything?

[Dinner]

What would you know about seriously arguing?

I think Ken knows more than you since all you seem to do is post one liners before running away. Speaking of which isn't it about time you turned tail and ran away again?

[Ben Kenobi]

I think it's pretty plain that we don't build military policy around bayonettes because we have more efficient tools at our disposal.

That makes them far from obsolete. As a first option, no, but as a backup?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

ROMNEY NOW: I laid out seven steps, crippling sanctions were number one.And they do work. You’re seeing it right now in the economy. It’s absolutely the right thing to do, to have crippling sanctions. I would have put them in place earlier. But it’s good that we have them.
ROMNEY THEN: But nothing in my view is as serious a failure as [President Obama's] failure to deal with Iran appropriately. This president — this president should have put in place crippling sanctions against Iran, he did not.

The Admin did not put sanctions against Iran that was a bipartisan congress that did so over Administration protests and attempts to water the sanctions down. (passed in Senate 100-0 over Admin protests) http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ns_legislation

The admin meanwhile was able to water the sanctions down on their own without senatorial oversight. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/wo...oil.html?_r=2&

[Dauphin]

I've not seen the debate and only scanned through this thread. But based on commentary on this thread about number of ships, Romney sounds like he pointed out a boring trivial fact and Obama sounds glib - I'd have preferred a response of "in 1917 we had the 3rd largest navy in the world, today we have the largest".

[giblets]

Could one of Mitt Romney's apologists explain to me why Iran needs Syria as a "route to the sea"?

[snoopy369]

Iran needs Syria because otherwise they don't have any Shia-led friends, I supsect. Other than Iraq, anyway, which nobody counts.