AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Romney deserves to lose simply because...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Romney deserves to lose simply because...

post #1 of 12
10/23/12 at 4:08pm
Thread Starter 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran-blog/2012/oct/23/romney-gaffe-syria-iran-route-to-sea

 

A presidential candidate should at least know exactly where 2 of the biggest threats to world stability are located on a map...  

 

Obama got him pretty good with the horses and bayonets comment too.  Not to mention, the assertion that the US Navy is the smallest since 1918 was false to begin with - it was smaller under GWB, not that it matters.  

 

Seriously, Mitt Romney made himself look stupid last night.  

Reply
Reply
post #2 of 12
10/23/12 at 4:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran-blog/2012/oct/23/romney-gaffe-syria-iran-route-to-sea

 

A presidential candidate should at least know exactly where 2 of the biggest threats to world stability are located on a map...  

 

Obama got him pretty good with the horses and bayonets comment too.  Not to mention, the assertion that the US Navy is the smallest since 1918 was false to begin with - it was smaller under GWB, not that it matters.  

 

Seriously, Mitt Romney made himself look stupid last night.  

 

I just saw that misstatement about "the route to the sea."   I guess you'll make of that what you will.  He was obviously wrong in that respect, but to state he isn't able to be President because of a statement like that is going way over the top.  I mean, after all, I would think that  knowing how many states there are in the United States might be a good qualification too.  

 

As for Obama, what you think was a good line actually made Obama look terrible.  It was funny, but it was rude and condescending.  It was especially bad when he went into the "we have these things called aircraft carriers" line.  It was un-presidential.   And mark my words, Obama's behavior in the second half of the debate whill cost him dearly with independents and undecided voters.   

 

Concerning Romney, that is the first time I've read or seen such an opinion ("he looked stupid").  I wholeheartedly disagree, as does just about every analyst, pundit, pollster, etc.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #3 of 12
10/23/12 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran-blog/2012/oct/23/romney-gaffe-syria-iran-route-to-sea

A presidential candidate should at least know exactly where 2 of the biggest threats to world stability are located on a map...  

Obama got him pretty good with the horses and bayonets comment too.  Not to mention, the assertion that the US Navy is the smallest since 1918 was false to begin with - it was smaller under GWB, not that it matters.  

Seriously, Mitt Romney made himself look stupid last night.  

Well, I think Romney may be guilty of giving the left a bit too much credit for smarts in understanding his point.

http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/331390/fact-checking-romneys-comment-syria-irans-route-sea-greg-pollowitz
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 12
10/23/12 at 4:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post


Well, I think Romney may be guilty of giving the left a bit too much credit for smarts in understanding his point.
http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/331390/fact-checking-romneys-comment-syria-irans-route-sea-greg-pollowitz

Yes, he could have said that Syria is how Tehran exports terrorism, or how they transit oil to Europe, or that it's their satellite.  Or how they control the Iraqi central government.  Or the fact that they also wage terror through Hezbollah.  He could have said many things.  And Iran does have interests in Syria.  But Syria is not a 'sea-route' whether or not they built a military base there.  

 

And come on, you guys have no sense of humor.  Obama's line about 'horses and bayonets' may have been condescending and not particularly presidential, but it was pretty funny.  

Reply
Reply
post #5 of 12
10/23/12 at 4:30pm

If you actually look at a map, you'll see exactly what Romney meant.

 

It's thought that in a full scale mid-east war, Israel can't be beaten unless they are engaged on all sides. Iran can engage air to air, but to truly fight Israel means that the Persians need a strong ally capable of giving them a "route to the sea", meaning the Mediterranean. Iran has a well equipped Navy which can likely cause lots of problems in the Persian Gulf. But that's of no use if you are aiming to fight Israel.

 

What this actually shows is that Romney is already much more aware of the logistics of the Middle East situation than most Americans.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #6 of 12
10/23/12 at 4:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

If you actually look at a map, you'll see exactly what Romney meant.

 

It's thought that in a full scale mid-east war, Israel can't be beaten unless they are engaged on all sides. Iran can engage air to air, but to truly fight Israel means that the Persians need a strong ally capable of giving them a "route to the sea", meaning the Mediterranean. Iran has a well equipped Navy which can likely cause lots of problems in the Persian Gulf. But that's of no use if you are aiming to fight Israel.

 

What this actually shows is that Romney is already much more aware of the logistics of the Middle East situation than most Americans.

 

I have to say that access to the Mediterranean seems an unlikely explanation. Even with army bases in Syria - what are they going to do once they get there, without their navy? Kayak? Syria represents a good ground attack option, and maybe a good air support location, but I cannot imagine that going via Syria to attack Israel from the sea is one of their cunning plans. 

Reply
Reply
post #7 of 12
10/23/12 at 7:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I have to say that access to the Mediterranean seems an unlikely explanation. Even with army bases in Syria - what are they going to do once they get there, without their navy? Kayak? Syria represents a good ground attack option, and maybe a good air support location, but I cannot imagine that going via Syria to attack Israel from the sea is one of their cunning plans. 

 

You are taking the word 'route' too literally. The issue isn't the transportation of Iranian troops over land to the sea.

 

It's an avenue to provide weapons and supplies to proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, who can use them against Israel on the other side.

 

How do you think missiles are procured and flown from the territories into Israel now?

 

If there is another Arab-Israeli war in the future, Iran must be thinking that Syria is a vital asset. True, that doesn't mean the Iranian Navy crosses over land, but it does likely mean that the Iranian Navy must share tech and knowhow with a Mediterranean naval ally.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #8 of 12
10/23/12 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I have to say that access to the Mediterranean seems an unlikely explanation. Even with army bases in Syria - what are they going to do once they get there, without their navy? Kayak? Syria represents a good ground attack option, and maybe a good air support location, but I cannot imagine that going via Syria to attack Israel from the sea is one of their cunning plans. 

 

You are taking the word 'route' too literally. The issue isn't the transportation of Iranian troops over land to the sea.

 

It's an avenue to provide weapons and supplies to proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, who can use them against Israel on the other side.

 

How do you think missiles are procured and flown from the territories into Israel now?

 

If there is another Arab-Israeli war in the future, Iran must be thinking that Syria is a vital asset. True, that doesn't mean the Iranian Navy crosses over land, but it does likely mean that the Iranian Navy must share tech and knowhow with a Mediterranean naval ally.

 

Well perhaps, but here's the problem; the few "pundits" defending the quote are coming up with all kinds of conflicting explanations, including several that do suggest that Syria would want to attack Israel by sea. Now you are arguing that he meant the route from Iran to Syria, with the sea not figuring at all. Until a war. And did you have a Mediterranean naval ally in mind? It's getting a bit contrived. I think he misspoke, but the strange thing is that he has said that several times before and been called on it, which leaves me wondering what he was trying to say.

Reply
Reply
post #9 of 12
10/23/12 at 7:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

If you actually look at a map, you'll see exactly what Romney meant.

 

It's thought that in a full scale mid-east war, Israel can't be beaten unless they are engaged on all sides. Iran can engage air to air, but to truly fight Israel means that the Persians need a strong ally capable of giving them a "route to the sea", meaning the Mediterranean. Iran has a well equipped Navy which can likely cause lots of problems in the Persian Gulf. But that's of no use if you are aiming to fight Israel.

 

What this actually shows is that Romney is already much more aware of the logistics of the Middle East situation than most Americans.

Really?  First of all, Iran has about a 0% chance in a war with Israel and they know it.  Second of all, it's doubtful that Iran's naval capabilities can threaten Israel, and even if they could, they would simply go through the Suez Canal, or go around Africa.  Not to mention, Bashar al-Assad hardly is in a position to be helping Iran go to war with Israel - he wants to save his own skin, he already nearly provoked Turkey to war, I doubt he'll be threatening anyone.  

 

The most realistic situation would be for Iran to simply attack Israel from the air which, again, is not particularly smart because Israel has the second most capable air force in the world and nuclear weapons.  

 

Iran is smart enough to know that getting nuclear weapons is the only way they'll be able to avoid getting attacked - Pakistan is safe because they have nuclear weapons, and they're hardly friendly to us but we accept it.  

 

Romney also said he's confident Netanyahu would 'discuss' attacking Iran with him before he did it - please, Netanyahu has never given a **** about what the international community has said.  Romney made so many ignorant comments during the debate that it's perfectly logical to assume he has no clue about geography either...  And if what you claim he meant is what he actually meant, he would have been smart to explain the comment.  

Reply
Reply
post #10 of 12
10/23/12 at 7:53pm
Thread Starter 

Also, it doesn't really make sense for him to attack from the Mediterranean, where there's guaranteed to be about a million American, French, British and Israeli ships...  

Reply
Reply
post #11 of 12
10/23/12 at 7:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

Also, it doesn't really make sense for him to attack from the Mediterranean, where there's guaranteed to be about a million American, French, British and Israeli ships...  

 

That's going to be a problem whatever direction they come from.

Reply
Reply
post #12 of 12
10/24/12 at 4:10am

Hey Mike:  Consider responding to my post.  Thanks.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Romney deserves to lose simply because...