Syria: Iran's Path To The Sea

[Direckshun]

Can somebody explain this to me, please?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, let's step back and talk about what's happening in Syria and how important it is. First of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster.

Secondly, Syria's an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. 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. Number two, seeing a -- a replacement government being responsible people is critical for us. And finally, we don't want to have military involvement there. We don't want to get drawn into a military conflict.

[blaise]

"It's only a gaffe if Romney says it."

- cosmo

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Barack Obama is the one who seems to equate naval vessels with horses and bayonets, not Mitt Romney.

Sure, small naval vessels have largely been replaced with large ones that do the job, and more, of several older vessels. Similarly, horses and bayonets have largely been replaced with more useful and efficient modes of transportation and weaponry.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Except he didn't say "Syria provides a route to Hezbollah and Hamas." Good effort though.

uh ya he did. a route to arm hez in Lebanon..mr.corspeman cosmo

it really is funny to watch a select few find their identity in this election

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Sure, small naval vessels have largely been replaced with large ones that do the job, and more, of several older vessels. Similarly, horses and bayonets have largely been replaced with more useful and efficient modes of transportation and weaponry.

bayonets replaced?

..yup, all 300,000 of them.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by blaise

"It's only a gaffe if Romney says it."

- cosmo

Not at all. Obama's had his share.
The funny thing here, as is often the case, is that Romney supporters can't even admit he said something incorrect.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Not at all. Obama's had his share.
The funny thing here, as is often the case, is that Romney supporters can't even admit he said something incorrect.

Well, yeah, unlike you who is always criticizing Obama and not talking for weeks about horses and donuts.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by stevieray

uh ya he did. a route to arm hez in Lebanon..mr.corspeman cosmo

it really is funny to watch a select few find their identity in this election

I misspoke, and did mangle that. I meant the "It's their route to the sea" statement is at issue, not whether those groups are supported by Iran.

[WoodDraw]

How do you equate route to the sea to arming hez?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Donger

I've never heard of that before.

Yeah, me neither. Mostly cuz it's bullshit.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I guess our backward liberal friends are still thinking in terms of horses and bayonets. They don't realize that aircraft and a close ally on the shore of the Mediterranean constitutes an important supply route for both Hezbollah and Hamas, the two primary Iranian proxy threats to Israel.

It's hard to supply Hamas by land or by air and it's hard to ship supplies through the Suez Canal which, at least until the Obama administration got their hands on our foreign policy, has been controlled by a security ally of Israel.

Two ****ing trillion dollars. I'm probably goign to vote Romney, but the sheer stupidity of this two ****ing trillion dollars thing really makes me want to puke.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Barack Obama is the one who seems to equate naval vessels with horses and bayonets, not Mitt Romney.

The point is that a ship to ship comparison is absolutely irrelevant and useless, because the warships of 1916 or whatever year Romney references didn't have one one-millionth of the firepower and power projection capabilities of the navy of 2012.

Might as well say we don't have as many tanks now as we had horses in [whatever year], it's EXACTLY the same thing.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Sure, small naval vessels have largely been replaced with large ones that do the job, and more, of several older vessels. Similarly, horses and bayonets have largely been replaced with more useful and efficient modes of transportation and weaponry.

The last time the Navy studied the issue, they said they needed somewhere north of 310 ships to do their mission. That's down from the 330-400 ships we had during the Clinton administration which was down from the nearly 600 we had at the end of the cold war, but it's more than the 280 or so that we have now.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by stevieray

bayonets replaced?

..yup, all 300,000 of them.

See that word up there, the one that says "LARGELY"?

Anyway, only the Marines still have them at all, and few actually use them in service.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Two ****ing trillion dollars. I'm probably goign to vote Romney, but the sheer stupidity of this two ****ing trillion dollars thing really makes me want to puke.

How do you calculate that $2 trillion? Or are you blindly accepting the number Obama has been using?

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

See that word up there, the one that says "LARGELY"?

Anyway, only the Marines still have them at all, and few actually use them in service.

see that word up there? REPLACED?

with what? donut holes?