The 1916 reference was just a sound bite, in exactly the same way that Obama said that Romney wanted to return to the foreign policy of the 1980’s. Am I supposed to get outraged at how stupid that idea is? Or start snarking that Obama doesn’t realize that the Soviet Union is gone?
I think we can safely assume that Romney knows that 1916 wasn’t the gold standard of Navy inventory levels. Just as I would assume that Obama saying that the 1980’s wants its foreign policy back is just a lame-ass joke, and not a statement of belief that Romney wants another cold war with a reconstituted Soviet Union. Both of them were simply taking license to use numbers in a way that might generate a sound bite that sticks. Politicians do this all the time.
But on this board, anything a conservative says (whether a Republican politician or a conservative poster on this board) must be parsed with a microscope, declared to be completely idiotic based on any possible stretch or literal interpretation of the meaning you can get away with, while allowing no possible benefit of the doubt.
Once this anal word-parsing exercise is completed, the usual suspects then use that as evidence that the poster or Republican politician is A) lying, or B) stupid.
IIRC, Romney has been making this claim during his main speeches, at least since January. This isn’t just a gaffe, something which I agree gets overplayed. It’s a deeply silly point, given that the US Navy’s relative strength is the highest it’s been during the 1865-2011 era. See post 114. It was a BS talking point Sam, there’s no equivalency with Obama’s reply that the comparing ship levels across such vast time periods is idiotic.
George W Bush briefed himself on foreign policy with more care than Romney did. He is an embarrassment.
Actually, you’re just defending a horseshit claim for partisan reasons. Instead of lamenting how mean the liberals are, try supporting reasonable stuff.
Romney wanted to make Obama look weak on defense. He did that by using a stupid statistic. Obama showed why it was stupid and Romney looked like a dipshit.
None of that is a liberal plot. It’s a stupid statistic that didn’t represent what Romney suggested it did being debunked.
I really don’t care what a bunch of SDMB posters think, there is a reason Taiwanese politicians get into fist fights in parliament, it’s because they know they will get utterly destroyed the moment they declare independence. Their butts are the one that is on the line which is why they can’t even say they are their own country and China is content to pretend Taiwan is theirs as long as the $$$ keeps pouring in.
There is literally zero chance in 2012 we will go to all out war with freaking CHINA over Taiwan, we couldn’t even handle Iraq+Afghanistan+Iran at the same time, much less the fact that China can choose to utterly destroy the American economy anytime by calling in their American debt.
The U.S. pays lip-service to defending Taiwan but no more, we would not do anything to anger China and we would be economically devastated if we were at all out war with China. Likely we would just beg the U.N. to step in against China.
I have no idea what Romney’s been saying on the stump. If it’s the case that he’s actually try to use 1916 as some sort of yardstick in a serious way, I’ll be happy to agree with you that it’s idiotic.
Frankly, my opinion of most politicians is very low. Romney has said plenty of stupid things in his past, and so has Obama. But I also have an appreciation for just how crazy politics is, and why candidates are forced to make bogus arguments and dance around things that everyone knows but which can’t be said without torpedoing a campaign.
The debates are the ultimate example of how crazy politics can be. You just know that both Obama and Romney would like to say things that are obviously true (or that they believe are obviously true), but simply can’t be spoken without having everyone go ballistic. Obama knows that Medicare is in trouble. Romney knows he can’t balance the budget in 8 years while cutting taxes and increasing defense spending. Obama knows that closing Gitmo is damned near impossible at this point. But both candidates are forced to dance around these issues and make promises they can’t keep.
Both candidates are constantly walking a thin line with their base on one side, independents on the other, and a zillion special interest groups watching that have to be placated to win a close election. You simply can’t parse all that and come up with a political strategy that is consistent, logical, and which won’t piss off at least one of your major constituencies. So Obama can’t admit that raising taxes on the rich won’t fundamentally change the trajectory of the budget, and Romney can’t admit that tax cuts or even revenue-neutral tax changes can’t possibly get him to a balanced budget in any reasonable time frame, and probably not ever. It’s all Kabuki theater.
The only reason I posted about that one comment of Obama’s is that I thought it was petty and mean and ill-advised. I could have ‘fact-checked’ half a dozen things he said that were questionable at best (and outright lies at worst), but then Romney also had some whoppers, so… whatever. May the best liar win.
The thing is though Sam, your post is part of the problem. Yes, politicians do lie, and I don’t believe its because of the base, or independents, but rather people like you.
Mitt has been rated as telling FOUR TIMES as many “pants on fire” as Obama, yet you place them both as liars.
I’d also note that most sources cherry pick statements and are not always fair. Here’s Obama getting called out for lying about the sequester:
In fairness, it could just be that he had no idea that it came out of his administration. Nothing I’ve read tells me that he’s involved in day to day decisionmaking.
Taiwan is quite defensible. China does not have the transport capacity or the airlift capacity to plausibly invade Taiwan. Put some US firepower in those straits and an already difficult task becomes completely impossible.
And China does have a lot more to lose. They can’t invade anyone and nothing forces us to come to them on land. We can leisurely wreck their navy and air force and set them back a decade or two, maybe more considering China would no longer have the US market to make money off of thanks to their actions.
Taiwan is a free country that depends on us to defend it from tyranny. If we let them fall without a fight, then that tells the Baltic Republics and Poland that we won’t protect them either.
This is based on my experience in the Navy: if China decided to invade Taiwan, we could defend the island by water. But it would be an enormous undertaking- the biggest military undertaking for the US since WWII.
That’s a given. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be the biggest amphibious invasion since WWII, maybe the biggest ever. Which is why they probably wouldn’t try it. It’s just not within their capabilities even if the US stayed out of it. For now.
From my understanding, the real battle would be in the sea- prevent Chinese forces from landing en masse in Taiwan. If we fail at that, China would overwhelm Taiwan’s defenses. We’re talking a country of over a billion, with a massive modern army, invading a small island with a population of 22 million, very close to the mainland. There would be massive casualties, but if they got most of their forces through the strait to land on Taiwan, a determined China would defeat Taiwan.
Yeah, but it’s a big strait. The challenges involved in invading Taiwan are much greater than the challenges facing Germany invading Britain. they just don’t have the air and naval dominance needed to successfully take Taiwan, unless they were heedless of casualties and willing to see about 250,000 Chinese resting on the bottom of the strait.
China can’t “call in their American debt”. The debt is issued in the form of agreements (called bonds or bills) to pay a certain amount every so often for a certain number of days/months/years. You can’t take a 20 year bond and simply demand payment if the payment isn’t due yet. You can try to sell it to someone else, but that’s it.
China owns 1.2T in US debt. While that would certainly create a shock to the system, I can’t imagine it would “destroy” the economy. Most likely we’d print our way out of it and deal with the resulting inflation.
Finally, what in the world makes you think we would honor the debt held by a belligerent nation? If China attacked Taiwan, we would probably simply cancel any debt owned by them which would likely have pretty bad effects on their economy.
Poor phrasing by the Tribune, it seems. Ray Mabus made those remarks references on April 16; the transcript of his speech is online here. In it he said:
The 30-year shipbuilding plan Mabus refers to can be accessed online here. This says , in part,
That 300-ship assumption is less than earlier assumptions of 313 ships; I assume that the drop is due in part to restrictions the 2011 Budget Control Act.