Final 2012 Presidential Debate, Foreign Policy

[Pinkie]

it's worse when you find that you are remembering things that didn't happen..been there done that.

I'm not sure what I found was a complete transcript -- and I see nothing on the subject on Romney's website.

O, finally: I'm not crazy. These are the candidates' POVs, although this link is not to the debate transcript:

The Candidates on Nuclear Proliferation - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[Fisher]

Transcripts are not always as verbatim as people think they are. Not sure exactly what you are looking for though.

 

[Pinkie]

Transcripts are not always as verbatim as people think they are. Not sure exactly what you are looking for though.

Romney said he opposes nuclear disarmament and would consider nuking Iran as a "last resort".

 

[cpwill]

good thing that absurdity is not reality then isn't it.

I'm not really sure what you were trying to say there, as your comment appears to be nonsensical. However, the fact remains that the sharp curtailment of our navy under the current administrations' plan is dangerous, and Romney was correct while the President said something that probably came off as sharp-witted among the non-militarily-connected, but for those of us who know better, came off as abysmally stupid. I'm not sure if it was worse than the 2008 confusion between a tactic and a strategy, but it was certainly comparable.

 

[Boo Radley]

I'm not really sure what you were trying to say there, as your comment appears to be nonsensical. However, the fact remains that the sharp curtailment of our navy under the current administrations' plan is dangerous, and Romney was correct while the President said something that probably came off as sharp-witted among the non-militarily-connected, but for those of us who know better, came off as abysmally stupid. I'm not sure if it was worse than the 2008 confusion between a tactic and a strategy, but it was certainly comparable.

The word dangerous is likely hyperbolic. Everyone talks about wanting to cut government spending, but the rub is always in the where. You cannot be and are not serious about cuts unless you address the big three - SS, Medicare, and the military. And each of those have hardcore groups who will yell that any cuts to any of them is dangerous, or worse.

 

[cpwill]

The word dangerous is likely hyperbolic.

The word "dangerous" comes from the administrations own Secretary or Defense. Nor in this instance is it hyperbolic - it is an accurate depiction.

Everyone talks about wanting to cut government spending, but the rub is always in the where. You cannot be and are not serious about cuts unless you address the big three - SS, Medicare, and the military. And each of those have hardcore groups who will yell that any cuts to any of them is dangerous, or worse.

I have no problem with cutting DOD spending - and have gone into depth in other discussions about where I would be fine to see my own pay/benefits cut if necessary. It is these large, blunt reductions which are dangerous, not reductions in and of themselves.

 

[UtahBill]

The word "dangerous" comes from the administrations own Secretary or Defense. Nor in this instance is it hyperbolic - it is an accurate depiction.



I have no problem with cutting DOD spending - and have gone into depth in other discussions about where I would be fine to see my own pay/benefits cut if necessary. It is these large, blunt reductions which are dangerous, not reductions in and of themselves.

if we could just cut back on the waste......it would be a big help. The military surplus stores are not close to me so I don't go to those very often. But when I do.....I find stuff that indicates waste. How about rebuilt truck axles, with tags showing the when and where, stackd on pallets....and thousands of complete trucks, supposedly bomb proofed, sitting in fields, new and never used. Special shipping containers that could probably be re-used are just scrapped after one use. There is an old sugar factory in Shelley, Idaho where tons of that kind of stuff is stored. The actual outlet is south of Idaho Falls on the freeway. A walk through that store is enlightening. I am talking about new or barely used stuff.

 

[cpwill]

if we could just cut back on the waste......it would be a big help. The military surplus stores are not close to me so I don't go to those very often. But when I do.....I find stuff that indicates waste. How about rebuilt truck axles, with tags showing the when and where, stackd on pallets....and thousands of complete trucks, supposedly bomb proofed, sitting in fields, new and never used. Special shipping containers that could probably be re-used are just scrapped after one use. There is an old sugar factory in Shelley, Idaho where tons of that kind of stuff is stored. The actual outlet is south of Idaho Falls on the freeway. A walk through that store is enlightening. I am talking about new or barely used stuff.

:shrug: that would be great - but you run into the question of incentives. Waste is inherent to the incentive structure of government; so how to alter that?

 

[American]

Darling, when you avoid paying your fair share in full, who do you think picks up that tab?

The middle class and working poor.

It's not laid off on some cosmic platinum AMEX card.

Deficit spending does exactly that. As far as I'm concerned, with $3T+ budgets, everyone is paying more than their fair share. That size budget is insane.

 

[Boo Radley]

The word "dangerous" comes from the administrations own Secretary or Defense. Nor in this instance is it hyperbolic - it is an accurate depiction.

I think it is hyperbolic no matter who it comes from (and sometimes people misrepresent comments).

I have no problem with cutting DOD spending - and have gone into depth in other discussions about where I would be fine to see my own pay/benefits cut if necessary. It is these large, blunt reductions which are dangerous, not reductions in and of themselves.

It still always come down to what where, and always someone will call the cut dangerous. The only thing that might change is who.

 

[cpwill]

I think it is hyperbolic no matter who it comes from (and sometimes people misrepresent comments).

not at all. It is dangerous. You can object to calling a spade a spade, but a spade it remains.

It still always come down to what where, and always someone will call the cut dangerous. The only thing that might change is who.

yeah - and when it's the administrations own SecDef, then we should sit up and pay attention, beyond the simple ability to apply common sense. Cycling in a 401(k) style TSP match to replace the Pension System and giving Active Duty / retirees an HSA option to replace TRICARE are cuts that will save us beaucoup billions, but won't directly impact our capabilities set. Reducing our already aging fleet is something does directly impact our capabilities set, and does so very deeply. It's the difference between losing weight by running, or losing weight by amputation.

 

[Boo Radley]

not at all. It is dangerous. You can object to calling a spade a spade, but a spade it remains.

Unless of course it's really a rake.

yeah - and when it's the administrations own SecDef, then we should sit up and pay attention, beyond the simple ability to apply common sense. Cycling in a 401(k) style TSP match to replace the Pension System and giving Active Duty / retirees an HSA option to replace TRICARE are cuts that will save us beaucoup billions, but won't directly impact our capabilities set. Reducing our already aging fleet is something does directly impact our capabilities set, and does so very deeply. It's the difference between losing weight by running, or losing weight by amputation.

No more than anyone else.

And no, it's not equal to amputation either. What we do and need to do with the Navy, we still can and still will be able to do.

 

[poweRob]

Alright... this has to be done cause these guys are absolutely aweomse. If you don't know them they do "Epic Rap Battles of History". They match up famous figures in history and have rap battles between them. And they just did an awesome Mitt v Barack one.

 

[cpwill]

Unless of course it's really a rake.

True enough, but in this case Secretary Panetta is correct.

No more than anyone else.

Yes more than anyone else. For two reasons : 1. he has incredible credibility to speak on the matter and 2. it is against his incentives to speak up on the matter in the way that he has.

And no, it's not equal to amputation either. What we do and need to do with the Navy, we still can and still will be able to do.

That is not correct - because our ability to do what we need the Navy to do is severely degraded, which means that we will not be able to achieve our aims of having it achieve its' mission set with the minimum force that we wish to use. When you are a constant, heavy, intimidating presence, simply being there is deterrent. When you are a far-away, medium sized potential threat, then you have to come in and destroy something in order to get the same effect across.


Cutting ships down to this level immediately slashes our combat power in a way that phasing out the Pension does not. That is why the first cut is dangerous and the second isn't.

 

[Boo Radley]

True enough, but in this case Secretary Panetta is correct.

I haven't seen anything to convince me he is.

Yes more than anyone else. For two reasons : 1. he has incredible credibility to speak on the matter and 2. it is against his incentives to speak up on the matter in the way that he has.

He has insight, but it is your second point that is inaccurate. He has incentives. It's one of the mistakes of look at everything through a political ideology, you miss incentives. It's in his domain, his financed domain. He loses from his budget, shrinks his importance, no matter how slightly. That also invades your number one.

That is not correct - because our ability to do what we need the Navy to do is severely degraded, which means that we will not be able to achieve our aims of having it achieve its' mission set with the minimum force that we wish to use. When you are a constant, heavy, intimidating presence, simply being there is deterrent. When you are a far-away, medium sized potential threat, then you have to come in and destroy something in order to get the same effect across.


Cutting ships down to this level immediately slashes our combat power in a way that phasing out the Pension does not. That is why the first cut is dangerous and the second isn't.

Well this is what is being disputed. Saying it is one thing, showing it to be so is another. There is no Navy that will match us no mission we can't do, so I just don't see it.

 

[AdamT]

Alright... this has to be done cause these guys are absolutely aweomse. If you don't know them they do "Epic Rap Battles of History". They match up famous figures in history and have rap battles between them. And they just did an awesome Mitt v Barack one.

Check out the "Romney Bounce" video -- hilarious.

www.mnftiu.cc

 

[cpwill]

I haven't seen anything to convince me he is.

He has insight, but it is your second point that is inaccurate. He has incentives. It's one of the mistakes of look at everything through a political ideology, you miss incentives. It's in his domain, his financed domain. He loses from his budget, shrinks his importance, no matter how slightly. That also invades your number one.

Well this is what is being disputed. Saying it is one thing, showing it to be so is another. There is no Navy that will match us no mission we can't do, so I just don't see it.

Alright, Boo. Bring to bear your experience and knowledge in this area and please demonstrate how Secretary Panetta, and everyone else are wrong, and this dramatic slashing of the Navy does not, in fact, degrade the Navy's ability to accomplish its' assigned mission set in a manner that is dangerous.




....I'll wait. But I'm thinking you will vacillate.

 

[Boo Radley]

Alright, Boo. Bring to bear your experience and knowledge in this area and please demonstrate how Secretary Panetta, and everyone else are wrong, and this dramatic slashing of the Navy does not, in fact, degrade the Navy's ability to accomplish its' assigned mission set in a manner that is dangerous.




....I'll wait. But I'm thinking you will vacillate.

No matter my experience, no how great or limited, does not excuse lack of evidence. You have to show clearly what we can't now do.

 

[cpwill]

No matter my experience, no how great or limited, does not excuse lack of evidence.

I agree, and it is incumbent upon you to do so. Though I think I will not hold my breath on this.

You have to show clearly what we can't now do.

You are the one making the claim that the experts are all wrong. However, it's fairly simple enough to do.

Our mission has not changed since 1990. In fact, given the Presidents' own (and correct) decision to shift emphasis to East Asia, which means the Pacific, which means a larger dependence upon forces afloat; the Navy's mission is expanding even as we have cut the number of ships in half.


Now. Tell me how all the Naval and Defense experts are wrong and you are right that these cuts do not drastically degrade our ability to conduct our assigned mission sets.

 

[Boo Radley]

I agree, and it is incumbent upon you to do so. Though I think I will not hold my breath on this.



You are the one making the claim that the experts are all wrong. However, it's fairly simple enough to do.



Now. Tell me how all the Naval and Defense experts are wrong and you are right that these cuts do not drastically degrade our ability to conduct our assigned mission sets.

You always misunderstand the claim. This limits our discussion a lot. I said Panetta has skin in the game, an incentive. That is fairly obvious. I said more than just quoting him has to be provided. Your chart doesn't actually address the issue. Quality might actually effectively replace quantity. Instead of quoting people, you have to show what can't be done.

 

[Pinkie]

I'm not really sure what you were trying to say there, as your comment appears to be nonsensical. However, the fact remains that the sharp curtailment of our navy under the current administrations' plan is dangerous, and Romney was correct while the President said something that probably came off as sharp-witted among the non-militarily-connected, but for those of us who know better, came off as abysmally stupid. I'm not sure if it was worse than the 2008 confusion between a tactic and a strategy, but it was certainly comparable.

Why do you say this, cpwill? Are they decommissioning boats?

 

[Pinkie]

The word "dangerous" comes from the administrations own Secretary or Defense. Nor in this instance is it hyperbolic - it is an accurate depiction.



I have no problem with cutting DOD spending - and have gone into depth in other discussions about where I would be fine to see my own pay/benefits cut if necessary. It is these large, blunt reductions which are dangerous, not reductions in and of themselves.

The Secretary of Defense isn't better informed than the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who back Obama's reduction plans.

I am asking what specific reduction, IYO, causes what specific danger, cpwill.

 

[cpwill]

The Secretary of Defense isn't better informed than the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who back Obama's reduction plans.

the JCS follow orders - as members of the military, their ability to speak publicly is sharply curtailed. that the SecDef spoke out at all is amazing, and probably testament mostly to his long experience and the ability to operate independently of his boss. he's been here before, he will be around later, etc.

I am asking what specific reduction, IYO, causes what specific danger, cpwill.

Ships have training and refit schedules, just like units do. So, for example, when we say that we are reducing from 11 Carrier groups to 9 or 8, we aren't really going down to 9 or 8 in the sense that that is our combat power. We are going down to however many of that 9 or 8 we can maintain forward.

Let's put them on a full pedal to the metal speed, assume that nothing on ships ever break, and say that we are going to manage a 1-for-1 swap; meaning that crews will be home six months and gone six months and home six months and gone six months. This is the deployment cycle that both the Army and the Marines have said in Afghanistan/Iraq will destroy a unit and eventually a service, but we will give the Navy the benefit of the doubt and assume they are all Iron Men.

That means at any given time there are 4 carrier groups afloat. Now, you need two to provide credible threat to the Iranians, a third in the area of the malacca straights, a fourth in the Med to respond to any scenario in Libya or Syria (here's a fun one: Syria has chemical weapons stores. Al Qaeda is in the opposition. What happens when Al Qaeda captures a chemical weapons store?), and a fifth in the Pacific. So that's five carrier groups that you need out of the four that you have - and that's before an earthquake hits Japan sparking a nuclear crisis, a tsunami overruns Indonesia, flooding wipes out half of Pakistan, the North Koreans start shelling the South Koreans, a Haitian earthquake knocks over all ten of that nations finished structures, Somali Pirates threaten take hostages and threaten to choke the oil trade.... etc. so on and so forth.

The US Navy is the single most important branch of service that we have to maintain if we wish to retain the ability to engage in global trade and avoid regional conflagration in the Middle East and Chinese hegemony in the Pacific. The vast majority of humanity doesn't live on temperate zone plains perfect for tanks; it lives in the littorals.

 

[cpwill]

Why do you say this, cpwill? Are they decommissioning boats?

well, they are "ships" but yes. running them is expensive, after all, especially after the current administration insisted that they all run on $26-dollar-a-gallon biofuel green-energy-unicorns, instead of regular fuel.

 

[cpwill]

You always misunderstand the claim. This limits our discussion a lot. I said Panetta has skin in the game, an incentive. That is fairly obvious. I said more than just quoting him has to be provided. Your chart doesn't actually address the issue. Quality might actually effectively replace quantity. Instead of quoting people, you have to show what can't be done.

I've responded to Pinkie, but you made a positive claim. I continue to wait for you to cease vacillating and come up with your own evidence.