Romney thinks that Syria is Iran's route to the sea.....

AdamT said:

Saying it once is a gaffe. Saying it two or more times, as in Romney's case, is not a gaffe -- it's an indication of ignorance.

Click to expand...

So if he mistated the number of states more than once you will openly concede on this forum that Obama is ignorant?

Yes or no?

justabubba said:

let's see who is actually the naif
during which American administration did circumstances change such that iraq was no longer the enemy of iran


for extra credit, which American is running as the presidential candidate from the same party as that failed administration

Click to expand...

Hard to decipher your sentence structure, perhaps English is not your native language.

Here is n article this year about the Iranian/Iraqi relations: Iran Gets Close to Iraq - New Leaders Forum

AliHajiSheik said:

Hard to decipher your sentence structure, perhaps English is not your native language.

Here is n article this year about the Iranian/Iraqi relations: Iran Gets Close to Iraq - New Leaders Forum

Click to expand...

ok, here is the challenge to the other forum members
it you are able to 'decipher' my questions, please share with us the answers to those questions


during which American administration did circumstances change such that iraq was no longer the enemy of iran


which American is running as the presidential candidate from the same party as that failed administration

AliHajiSheik said:

Yes, they can attempt to use land outside the straight as they are planning to do by putting an oil terminal at Banshar e-Jask (sp?). It is not just stuff going out of Iran that sanctions are intended to address but stuff going into Iran. Also, if you think that Iraq is that friendly to the US, you are naive.

As for options, I would suspect that all options are being organized and attempted, or do you think otherwise?

Click to expand...

No, I am not naive. The current government is more dependent on the US than it is on Iran. Iran also has bad blood with 2 of the 3 factions in Iraq (Kurds and Sunni).

Iraq has nothing to gain from letting Iran use it as through fare country to go into Syria. And again, how do you get out of the Straits of Gibraltar and the US fleet in that region?

No, Romney was just talking nonsense when he said what he did. Iran does not need to do things like that, they can use the sea options they already have rather than use a route that is fraught with danger of discovery and destruction of Iranian property.

AdamT said:

Saying it once is a gaffe. Saying it two or more times, as in Romney's case, is not a gaffe -- it's an indication of ignorance.

Click to expand...

Romney is smart enough to know we need to do more nation building in the middle east. We can't just hope that Egypt, Libya, and Syria form new governments that are friendly to the US, we need to get our troops involved and flex our muscles.

joko104 said:

So if he mistated the number of states more than once you will openly concede on this forum that Obama is ignorant?

Yes or no?

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely.

It's pretty foolish to think that Obama really didn't know how many states there are ... having grown up in Hawaii -- the 50th and last state.

johnny_rebson said:

Romney is smart enough to know we need to do more nation building in the middle east. We can't just hope that Egypt, Libya, and Syria form new governments that are friendly to the US, we need to get our troops involved and flex our muscles.

Click to expand...

I would presume that he's not stupid enough to get our troops involved in any of those countries.

AdamT said:

Yes, absolutely.

It's pretty foolish to think that Obama really didn't know how many states there are ... having grown up in Hawaii -- the 50th and last state.

Click to expand...

I am just happy somebody got him to stop pronouncing Massachusetts like MassaTussetts. Wasn't like he didn't live in the state during law school.

AdamT said:

I would presume that he's not stupid enough to get our troops involved in any of those countries.

Click to expand...

Romney will be a good soldier for the GOP and accept orders.

AdamT said:

Yes, absolutely.

It's pretty foolish to think that Obama really didn't know how many states there are ... having grown up in Hawaii -- the 50th and last state.

Click to expand...

Hawaii's a state? That's news to Obama. BO's convinced it's part of Asia.

Obama thinks Hawaii is in Asia - YouTube

sharon said:

You are incorrect on EVERY count..

According to the laws concerning the Suez Canal.. Any country that is NOT at war with Egypt can pay their transit fees and use the Suez Canal.

Iran does NOT have 2 warships in the Med. They had a cadet ship and a supply ship.

Iran has terrible problems concerning aircraft parts and a terrible record of failures and crashes.

MALIK is the boss in Iraq these days.. and the news has reported the movement and discussions and promises regarding Iran supplying arms and munition thru Iraq to Syria.

Nobody is covering for Obama.. The Saudis, the GCC and the Turks re supplying the rebels with small arms with US approval.. The current discussion is whether or not to supply them with heavier weapons.

NOW.. look at a map.

Click to expand...

Do you trust CNN? Mubarak never allowed an Iranian ship through the Suez canal.

Egypt has agreed to allow two Iranian warships to cross through the Suez Canal in a move that puts the country's new military regime in a prickly position with its Israeli neighbor.

The post-Hosni Mubarak caretaker government gave the green light to the Iranian warships Friday, state media reported. They are expected to be the first Iranian warships to sail through the Suez since the Islamic republic's 1979 revolution
Egypt to let Iranian warships through Suez Canal - CNN

AdamT said:

No, since they don't share a border. Turkey is Iran's path to the Med. Sea.

Click to expand...

You're being disingenuous, regardless of what Romney said or intended to say. Tartus is widely regarded as Russia's main access port to the Mediterranean Sea (which, among other things, has a lot to do with Russia's support of the Assad regime). And yet Russia and Syria do not share a border. How do you suppose this is possible? Are the foreign affairs experts who claim that Tartus serves as a strategic port of entry to the Mediterranean Sea for the Russians wrong? If not, could not Syria be useful for the Iranians in a similar way?

In regards to Romney's comments, I don't really care what he said. I'm not a fan of Romney and I think he's a babe in the woods in regards to foreign policy. But I'm certain his remarks were either A) poorly worded - he meant Mediterranean Sea but left out the mediterranean bit or B) just a simple brain fart. Everybody, including you, everybody else in this thread and Obama, has gaffes and says inaccurate **** from time to time. I don't believe for one second that Romney has never looked at a map and that he actually believes Iran is landlocked. And I think anybody that takes his statement to indicate that is suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias.

Overblowing comments like this (or "binders full of women" or "you didn't build that" etc.) is just part of the partisan hysteria that overcomes so many around election time. Come on people, stay sharp.

the_recruit said:

You're being disingenuous, regardless of what Romney said or intended to say. Tartus is widely regarded as Russia's main access port to the Mediterranean Sea

Click to expand...

And yet no one would call Syria Russia's path to the sea. That's because the expression is reserved for landlocked countries that have no access, or very difficult access, to the sea without passing through another country.

Again, it wasn't a slip of the tongue or a gaffe by Romney. He has used the exact same expression on the campaign trail before, and he's been criticized for it before. But as we've seen time and time again, Romney doesn't care if what he says is actually TRUE. Hence the statement by his campaign manager that Mitt would not be constrained by fact checkers. Why let something as trivial as the truth get in the way of a good talking point?

AdamT said:

And yet no one would call Syria Russia's path to the sea. That's because the expression is reserved for landlocked countries that have no access, or very difficult access, to the sea without passing through another country.

Click to expand...

I was addressing your response to ecofarm's question regarding the MEDITERRANEAN sea. If you include the modifier MEDITERRANEAN, then the statement makes sense for Russia (and for Iran). Which, as I've already pointed out, is a possible explanation for what Romney means/meant in that comment.

AdamT said:

Again, it wasn't a slip of the tongue or a gaffe by Romney. He has used the exact same expression on the campaign trail before, and he's been criticized for it before. But as we've seen time and time again, Romney doesn't care if what he says is actually TRUE. Hence the statement by his campaign manager that Mitt would not be constrained by fact checkers. Why let something as trivial as the truth get in the way of a good talking point?

Click to expand...

:roll: So, then Romney's not so stupid and does not believe Iran is landlocked. He's doing what all politicians necessarily do - lying to curry favor with the electorate. That's even less newsworthy; you must be new to politics - Welcome!

the_recruit said:

I was addressing your response to ecofarm's question regarding the MEDITERRANEAN sea. If you include the modifier MEDITERRANEAN, then the statement makes sense for Russia (and for Iran). Which, as I've already pointed out, is a possible explanation for what Romney means/meant in that comment.

Click to expand...

If you include the disclaimer, "the following is a lie" it also cures the problem with his statement. But he didn't say that, or Mediterranean Sea.

:roll: So, then Romney's not so stupid and does not believe Iran is landlocked. He's doing what all politicians necessarily do - lying to curry favor with the electorate. That's even less newsworthy; you must be new to politics - Welcome![/QUOTE]

I don't know if he's ignorant or lying. I would actually prefer it if he were ignorant. That can be cured with a little study. But at his age, I don't have much hope that his character will improve.

For all the beating up on Mitt Romney let's be honest and acknowledge that when it came to foreign policy he was a neophyte when the campaign began with no direct experience in foreign policy or in governing relations between states other than via international business experience. In this sense he was the same as President Obama was before he ran for office, though in the President's case he could draw upon slightly more experience due to his short time in the Senate.

But both men grew and learned as they continued on their Presidential campaigns, and they both appointed talented men and women into their foreign policy circle. I think this debate showed some clear improvements and some sincere learning on the part of Mitt Romney from his earlier foreign policy interviews and speeches. I was impressed at his ability to paint a fairly complex (as far as mass media is concerned) image about Afghanistan, and our military and security situation. He certainly fumbled, but it was a valid performance.

Did Obama do better? Of course. He also has the benefit of having spent almost four years as the leader of the free world. He did much better. But did Romney pass the viability test? I think he did, and I think not too many people who watched the debate came away thinking Romney was incompetent or dangerous as some on here have alleged. I think both the President and Romney did more or less what they needed to do. He came away as someone who was competent, and someone who could be expected to grow into the office.

The rest is determined by whether or not you actually agree with his general perspectives which is a separate question I think.

When the US ships start pouring through the Straights of Hormuz, Syria will be Iran's only path to the sea (but I am sure all those US veterans of Iran the VP praised could give them directions if they need it)

AdamT said:

If you include the disclaimer, "the following is a lie" it also cures the problem with his statement. But he didn't say that, or Mediterranean Sea.

Click to expand...

And sometimes people accidentally leave out a word they meant to say.

Obama didn't say "Fifty" states now did he. He said "Fifty-Three". Anybody that thinks Obama believes the US has fifty-three states is ludicrously partisan. Anybody that thinks Romney believes Iran is landlocked is ludicrously partisan.

AdamT said:

I don't know if he's ignorant or lying. I would actually prefer it if he were ignorant. That can be cured with a little study. But at his age, I don't have much hope that his character will improve.

Click to expand...

You're kidding yourself if you believe you're going to be voting for someone on Nov. 6th who doesn't lie. It's the nature of the game, unfortunately.

the_recruit said:

And sometimes people accidentally leave out a word they meant to say.

Obama didn't say "Fifty" states now did he. He said "Fifty-Three". Anybody that thinks Obama believes the US has fifty-three states is ludicrously partisan. Anybody that thinks Romney believes Iran is landlocked is ludicrously partisan.

Click to expand...

Actually he said 57 states, but be that as it may.... He said it one time and he made fun of his own mistake that same day. Romney's statement is part of his standard foreign policy spiel. He didn't accidentally leave out a word. He has used the exact same phrase on multiple occasions. It's simply not comparable to Obama's gaffe.

You're kidding yourself if you believe you're going to be voting for someone on Nov. 6th who doesn't lie. It's the nature of the game, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

As you say, all politicians stretch the truth from time to time. But Romny flat-out lies A LOT -- more than any politician I can recall. He can be called out by five separate fact checkers and two days later he will go out on the trail and tell the exact same lie. I find it completely unconscionable.

the_recruit said:

And sometimes people accidentally leave out a word they meant to say.

Obama didn't say "Fifty" states now did he. He said "Fifty-Three". Anybody that thinks Obama believes the US has fifty-three states is ludicrously partisan. Anybody that thinks Romney believes Iran is landlocked is ludicrously partisan.

You're kidding yourself if you believe you're going to be voting for someone on Nov. 6th who doesn't lie. It's the nature of the game, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Anyone who believes a word Romney says is "ludicrously partisan". Romney was playing "rope-a-dope" with foreign policy because the truth would have scared voters to death. He has surrounded himself with Bushies and neocons itching for war and that's what we would get no matter what he said about "peace and love" in the debate. Bush pulled the exact same stunt, claiming he didn't believe in "nation building" all the while planning an invasion of Iraq from the 1st day.

:doh Romney was perfectly correct that Syria gives Iran access to the Sea. They want that access for the same reasons that Russia does, despite that nation having Vladivostock. To point at a map of the Arabian gulf and laugh may make you feel informed, but it actually just makes you look shallowly educated.

"Mitt Romney: Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us. "

PeteEU said:

LOL seriously.. and the worst part it aint the first time he has claimed this...

Foreign Policy Debate: Mitt Romney's Geography Gaffe

Love some of the tweets haha.

This guy is beyond lightweight when it comes to foreign policy. Good thing foreign policy does not matter much.. but gezzzz

Click to expand...

Wow... You are ignorant to geopolitics aren't you? I love when lightweights try to accuse someone else of being one...

Psst... are you aware that there are sanctions in place which prevents shipments out of Iran from being recieved in most foreign ports?

This isn't about geography... it's about the fact that no one is accepting Iranian goods... That means nothing shipped out of Iran is acceptible... and as Romney was right to point out, Iran has no other serious ally in the region anymore...

Instead, what Iran has been doing is trucking things through Kurdistan into Syria and shipping the out of Syrian ports in the Mediterranean...

Again, let's look at the quote...

"Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world." Check

"It's their route to the sea." Check

"It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel." Check

"And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us. " Check...


So yet again, Romney is right on...

IndepCentristMA said:

"Mitt Romney: Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us. "



Wow... You are ignorant to geopolitics aren't you? I love when lightweights try to accuse someone else of being one...

Psst... are you aware that there are sanctions in place which prevents shipments out of Iran from being recieved in most foreign ports?

This isn't about geography... it's about the fact that no one is accepting Iranian goods... That means nothing shipped out of Iran is acceptible... and as Romney was right to point out, Iran has no other serious ally in the region anymore...

Instead, what Iran has been doing is trucking things through Kurdistan into Syria and shipping the out of Syrian ports in the Mediterranean...

Again, let's look at the quote...

"Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world." Check

"It's their route to the sea." Check

"It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel." Check

"And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us. " Check...


So yet again, Romney is right on...

Click to expand...

And would do nothing different than Obama who he agreed with on most evey issue. Romney's a dunce with dangerous advisors.....who does that sound like?

clownboy said:

So, of the two nations, which has it's ports blocakaded? You need to read back in the thread.

Click to expand...

Between Syria and Iran? Neither, an embargo is different than a blockade. One is more of a legal status, while the other is a physical action taken with Naval ships. An embargo can be enforced with a blockade, however it doesn't have to be. For example the United States has an embargo against Cuba, however Cuba is not under a blockade.

PeteEU said:

LOL seriously.. and the worst part it aint the first time he has claimed this...

Foreign Policy Debate: Mitt Romney's Geography Gaffe

Love some of the tweets haha.

This guy is beyond lightweight when it comes to foreign policy. Good thing foreign policy does not matter much.. but gezzzz

Click to expand...

It makes since if he was referring to the Mediterranean Sea and the coast of Israel, I'm by no means a Naval expert but I do know ships like anything else have logistical needs. If Iran were to hypothetically establish a logistical hub in Syria it would great aid as a force multiplier for convention and unconventional operations Iran may want to do.

I don't think he was literally suggesting Iran was a landlocked nation.