U.S. Presidential Debates & Election

[Oberon]

In regards to the discussion of foreign policy it's been an hour of the 90 minute debate and we've finally moved out of the Middle East.
Romney did mention Latin America as a potential trade zone, which is correct and good. Obama mentions China as a potential adversary and ally, also correct, and good and I think Romney agrees in that method although he wants to go further on stopping Chinese counterfeiting and copying (too little too late really, China has moved to the point where it has learnt from what it has copied and is building home grown stuff now, not as good quality as what it's copied, but it has more of them and they're cheaper).
Romney sees a nuclear Iran as the greatest threat to America whilst Obama sees continued terrorism as the greatest threat, both are correct in my view.

However, absolutely no mention has been made of Europe outside of Russia, and even Russia itself has just been an aside as a criticism of Romneys comments.
Very telling of where Americas future lies, the Middle East and Asia.


EDIT: Also, Romney is taking a much less confrontational tone on military action tonight, no mention of military action against Iran, and more talk of "using all options on the table", basically pretty much what Obama has said already. It's pretty clear that in war weary America he is concerned of being seen as a warmonger and too hawkish.
However, both candidates dodged the question of what they would do if 2014 came and Afghanistan wasn't ready for American troops to leave. They both know that 2014 is a very optimistic deadline but neither can say such a thing otherwise they'll lose the election, nor can they say that they'll leave no matter what as they don't want to see Afghanistan collapse nor embolden the Taliban and Al'Qaeda by assuring them that all they have to do is wait two years and the nation is theirs. Romneys points on Pakistan are true, but his plans are hopeless, attaching conditions to economic aid will not encourage Pakistan to change its current course of action and attack Al'Qaeda.
It is interesting, that in a poll conducted by the BBC World Service of 21 countries, only Pakistan preferred to see a President Romney than a President Obama. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-20008687)

Well, that's the end of the debate, and not a single mention of Europe. In a global economic crisis that Europe and America are both feeding each other off of, that's a bit of a mistake, although Romney scores points for targetting Latin America for economic growth. Certainly it seems that America is moving away from Europe and focusing on the Middle East and Asia, which places my home country, Britain, in a bit of a quandry, being as it is, the gateway to Europe for America, it puts us out to pasture and forces us to look closer to Europe for alliances or focus internally (on what little is left). The focus on Asia and the Middle East also puts further weight behind the theory of a new 'Great Game' which focuses around Eurasia, and is a vast geopolitical battleground between Russia, America and China, with Europe chipping in from time to time. The lack of mention of Africa, south of Egypt anyway, with the exception of a reference to Apartheid South Africa is also quite curious considering that the new rush for oil and minerals will take place in Central Africa as Middle Eastern developed fields begin to run dry, however given that this hasn't really been realised by the general public at the moment it is probably not that much of a talking point.

Well, the countdown to the US election begins now, two weeks to go and then we will see...I still think Obama will win this, although it is going to be close.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Very telling of where Americas future lies, the Middle East and Asia.

Well, not America's, really. I think this is more telling about where the "hot spot" for the driving forces of history is going to be in the next while.

Which isn't surprising, really. America and Europe made history when their economies were exploding, or when their skeletons came out of the closet in a big way that affected everyone. Now that's going on in a different part of the world.

[Armistead]

All I saw was Romney approve of Obama's foreign policy. The only real difference I saw was Romney wanted to spend another 2 trillion on defense which I'm sure made Defense Contractors very happy. I bet Eisenhower rolled in his grave.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Well the final debate is finally over and I think both canidates did well. Obama came off strong where he needed to and kept Romney largely on the defencive. However both canidates seemed over aggresive at times and that doesn't always look good in the public eye.

A point of Romeny's that I would disagree with is that the US needs to spend more on defence when the military isn't asking for it. I mean technolgy has come so far that today it takes a squad or a platoon to do the job that during WW2 would have taken a company to do. And why spend money that the military doesn't want or doesn't need, isn't that the decision for the Joint Cheifs of Staff to make and not the president?

As for the whole thing with China, I think Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear said it best, "Copyright infringment doesn't translate terribly well into Mandarin." In China they rip off everything from everywhere, and there have been companys who have tryed to sue Chinese companys for making copies of their products and lost. So its not just the United States having to deal with China making knockoffs, its the whole world, and China isn't going to change their ways simply because a president gets re-elected or a canidate gets elected.

An example from the China episode of Top Gear a Chinese company selling knockoffs of Honda motorcycles changed the name from Honda to Hongda. YT links:

[CCIP]

Yeah, truthfully speaking, I don't think there is a huge difference in foreign policy between the two at all. Most of the differences are perceived rather than real, happily spun out by the campaigns, but not actually amounting to much. Obama still strikes me as far more competent as a diplomat on a personal level, but he is no dove. He may play the global dialogue card while Romney plays the "tough guy" card, but in truth both of them are oriented very similarly, and both of them remain staunchly interventionist.

[CCIP]

Also, the expediency of the internet to make memes of the debates doesn't disappoint...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Well, not America's, really. I think this is more telling about where the "hot spot" for the driving forces of history is going to be in the next while.

Which isn't surprising, really. America and Europe made history when their economies were exploding, or when their skeletons came out of the closet in a big way that affected everyone. Now that's going on in a different part of the world.

Indeed, and sorry for editting the above in which I agree with you, sometimes I prefer to do that rather than make a new post directly after mine, but it can get a little confusing.
I maintain that the early 21st century will contain much of the same elements as that of the early 20th, and indeed that of the late 19th.
It is interesting that Afghanistan should be the focal point of events for the major powers of the world in the first years of this century when it has the infamous nickname of 'The graveyard of empires', certainly there must have been plenty of historians in the UK that grimiced at the irony that a hundred years after we left Afghanistan we were going back in again, making the same mistakes we made last time we were there, and suffering for it.
In Russia they called the Great Game the 'Tournament of Shadows' and perhaps that's a more accurate name for it as it never involved two major powers directly fighting each other, but rather who could influence certain key states, the most infamous of which, was Afghanistan, a nation between Britains India and Russias Samarkand, Tashkent and Bukhara, it was seen as a pivotal point of control between Russia and Britain, if Russia controlled it, then it could push its way south and threaten India, if Britain controlled it then it halted the Russian advance and kept India under British control.
Thankfully, eventually, we both united against the Germans and the Great Game was largely forgotten aside from a few brief scurries after the formation of the Soviet Union.

This new Great Game is focused primarily on resources rather than borders, certainly America is not out to create some Raj or become an Empire and such thoughts and accusations are ludicrous. What it does need though are resources to feed its economy, and so does China. So what we are coming to, and I believe are taking the first steps into, is a Second Great Game involving the Middle East, Africa and Asia. America currently holds great sway in two of these three locations, and China has spent the last decade building its influence in Africa. It will now need to look at pushing American influence out of Asia and out of the Middle East, without resorting to direct military force. To do this it will need the assistance of Russia which has sway over Central Asia and parts of the Middle East, and it will need to identify key weaknesses in American strategy in the Middle East and apply pressure to them. Romney correctly identifies Pakistan as a key player in this, Pakistan is to the US as Iran is to Russia and China, they don't see eye to eye, but co-operation is essential to further their goals.
The key area though, and where I think the middle to late 21st century will be focused is Africa, the long forgotten nation, which still contains untapped oil reserves, precious metals and other resources which have been buried under decades of civil war and dictatorships. In the late 19th century we had the 'European scramble for Africa' where most of Europe brought up Africa through money and gunpowder, and dug into it and brought back what we found to invest in our economies. Africa saw little benefit from it, and was thoroughly exploited into the 20th century before the First and Second World Wars brought an end to colonial ambitions. However, as current resource rich areas begin to dry up, the worlds major powers are going to have to look elsewhere for their goods, South America is another area which is ripe for resource gathering, but it has seen more development than Africa so there will be slightly less resources there for the taking. There will be no new colonies, or red coats fighting off swarms of Zulus, but there will certainly be greater investment in Africa, for oil, minerals and even farming as the climate shifts to make mass farming in North Africa a viable opportunity. However there will be colonialism by the back door, with multi-national companies edging in to organise resource gathering to its most efficient. This will be sold to the countries involved as 'investing in the local people' when the truth will be that all the local people will be able to do will be the grunt work...not a great step up from their position as slaves to their colonial masters. African governments will seem more stable but will be propped up by American or Chinese money and their allegiences and resources brought by companies of the relevant nations.
It's going to be softer than the colonial governing that European nations put in place, but it will still be there, and the African people will only benefit mildly from it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

EDIT: Also, Romney is taking a much less confrontational tone on military action tonight, no mention of military action against Iran, and more talk of "using all options on the table", basically pretty much what Obama has said already. It's pretty clear that in war weary America he is concerned of being seen as a warmonger and too hawkish.

I'm not surprised. There's always danger for a challenger to be seen as disagreeing with a good thing just to be different than the incumbent. It's ok to claim one would have done a bit more of this or a little less of that but Romney didn't really need to make any striking differences in this area as the primary issue in this election is not nearly so much about foreign policy as it is about domestic policy. Both sides know it and that's why both sides kept referring back to it.

Given the direction of the polling trends in the past month toward the GoP i'm thinking (pre-fact check dissection of the debate) that Romney accomplished his objective tonight which was not to step on his johnson and Obama didn't achieve his objective which was to make Romney step on his johnson repeatedly.

It's hard for me to tell living in a state that is so blue that at times yellow lights appear green, but absent some kind of "October surprise" that puts him in a really bad light I think Romney just might win this election.

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Also, the expediency of the internet to make memes of the debates doesn't disappoint...

What's with the bad photoshop? Their sabers have been replaced by very crudely pasted cartoon rifles.

Edit: looking at the picture again I actually don't think they had anything in their hands. What's up with that. Republican Confederates not as scary as the real Democrat old skool Confederates?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

"This is not a game of battleship."--Barack Obama

That is fantastic. Quote of the year, as far as I am concerned.

Obama had several cracking good quips tonight Love the one about the 1980s are calling, they want their foriegn policy back, and of course, the bayonettes and horses. I reallt don't understand the claim that our navy has fewer ships now than anytime since 1917... what, did the US have 200 battle rowboats in 1922 and they counted toward the whole? One thing is for sure, as Obama pointed out, you cannot compare ships based on numeric totals. One ship in today's navy, say the USS Texas, could easily wipe out all the US ships in 1917.

I will say this, both of these fellows are really intelligent. And Bob Schieffer did a much better job keeping these guys in line.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by August

What's with the bad photoshop? Their sabers have been replaced by very crudely pasted cartoon rifles.

Edit: looking at the picture again I actually don't think they had anything in their hands. What's up with that. Republican Confederates not as scary as the real Democrat old skool Confederates?

Hey, don't shoot the messenger... or bayonet him for that matter

I just found this floating on the interwebs, and was impressed at how quickly image-macro bandits and memesters grab onto things these days...

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I maintain that the early 21st century will contain much of the same elements as that of the early 20th, and indeed that of the late 19th.

Yeah, I think there's little sense denying that there is a very imperialist-like race for resources going on right now. One important thing for America to realize, as soon as possible, is that China is not their natural enemy - no more than Germany was Britain's natural enemy at the start of the 20th century. But therein lies the real lesson, of course - Britain and Germany inevitably had to maneuver around each other, like the US and China are doing today, and eventually maneuvered themselves into the previously-unthinkable and mutually-destructive position as each other's enemy. It didn't need to happen, but it did. Militant attitudes and an eagerness to get into the thick of others' conflicts played no small part in that.

US foreign policy really needs to keep those lessons in mind. It also needs to be really careful with its "our SOB" approach, especially in the Middle East. It's something that continues to backfire, and something that will inevitably bring America into conflicts it does not need in the long run.

[Oberon]

@CCIP I fully agree, and I hope that we don't fall into another 1914 scenario through militancy and the failure of diplomacy. It's one of the reasons I worry about the rise of extremism in politics, and jingoism through patriotism carried too far.
We've seen the rise of partisanship in America over the past decade, and a rise of patriotic pride which threatens sometimes to spill over into jingoism in a manner reminiscent of Britain circa 1870, but there's still hope that the mistakes of the past can be avoided in time.

@August I think Romney came close a couple of times to stepping on his own johnson, certainly his foot may have brushed it during the military spending section, allowing Obama to impart his one and only 'zinger' of the three debates, and during his attempt to keep claiming that Obama went on an 'apology tour' which is a subjective thing, and quite honestly it's not something I would have challenged Obama on since there was no firm evidence that it was an 'apology tour' despite many on the right claiming that it was. Other than that though, he kept it tight and by not going off too deeply into the right wing territory he pushed into the central ground where he might harvest some votes from.
Honestly, it's too tight to come down firmly on either side, I think we're looking at a Gore/Bush rerun in terms of how tight it's going to be, but I'm still in the belief that Obama is going to get himself a second term. I might be wrong, as I said, it's far too tight to be certain, but that's where I'm leaning at the moment.

@Neal, Obama was on good form tonight, some good soundbites which have already ascended to memes, I did like the whole "Foreign policy from the 1980s, social policy from the 1950s and an economic policy from the 1920s." quote, as well as the two you mentioned. I think, if anything, these debates are going to be remembered for binders and bayonets.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Obama had several cracking good quips tonight Love the one about the 1980s are calling, they want their foriegn policy back, and of course, the bayonettes and horses. I reallt don't understand the claim that our navy has fewer ships now than anytime since 1917... what, did the US have 200 battle rowboats in 1922 and they counted toward the whole? One thing is for sure, as Obama pointed out, you cannot compare ships based on numeric totals. One ship in today's navy, say the USS Texas, could easily wipe out all the US ships in 1917.

I will say this, both of these fellows are really intelligent. And Bob Schieffer did a much better job keeping these guys in line.

That's true, and I think in hindsight Romney would acknowledge that. My problem is that it seems as though he's moving to the right of the center on this, even though his actions suggest otherwise. Indeed, our ships are insanely more powerful - but they are also insanely more expensive, and require a ridiculously intense amount of expertise to fight.

What that means is that each ship is far more invaluable and irreplaceable. Relying on these ships and our intelligence assurances that no other navy can compete is inherently flawed - if the intel ever turns out to be flawed (imagine that), so much of our power is concentrated in so few platforms.

The capability of one aircraft carrier is amazing, for instance. But how much of that capability we lose should that carrier be destroyed would be devastating.

[mookiemookie]

Romney: "Syria is Iran's route to the sea." Syria....is.....Iran's....route to the sea?