• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

cousins

Member
pcgraphpng.php


Makes sense.
 
Obama Admin cutting Europe permanent troop presence too

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...leave-europe/2012/01/12/gIQArZqluP_story.html

The Obama administration has decided to remove two of the four U.S. Army brigades remaining in Europe

The goal is to reduce permanent garrisons and presence but include more rotational training exercises.

He said the Pentagon envisions sending Army units to areas such as Latin America and Africa on training exercises as the Obama administration continues to cut the size of the U.S. force in Afghanistan. Such missions have typically been conducted by Army Special Forces units and the Marine Corps.

Step in the right direction me thinks. We can also look at cutting troop presence further in Europe and do same from Asia too.
 

Tamanon

Banned
I can pretty much write the Romney response to this news already.

"This President is naively abandoning our European allies."
 

Chichikov

Member
Obama Admin cutting Europe permanent troop presence too

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...leave-europe/2012/01/12/gIQArZqluP_story.html



The goal is to reduce permanent garrisons and presence but include more rotational training exercises.



Step in the right direction me thinks. We can also look at cutting troop presence further in Europe and do same from Asia too.
I'm not a huge fan of this whole American superpower empire shit, but if you look at it through this prism, Obama's shifting of focus from Europe to the Pacific rim is a very smart strategic move, and one that is not covered by the media nearly enough.
 
You act as if Romney is the second coming of Reagan. Romney is arguably as weak, or weaker than John McCain was. Romney LOST to McCain in 2008.

At least conservatives could rally behind McCain. They can't do that with Romney without completely compromising their ideological beliefs.

Romney has yet to pull any big guns out, the man has been trying to become president for a long time, and will change his views and beliefs or do whatever it takes to win.

I really hope Obama beats him if he is the nominee however.


_______________________________

As for Syria, if the UN can't get off its lazy ass, I say we give Russia the finger, and go in there and remove their government and save some lives. If our allies want to help, they can. This isn't about playing world police...

This is about being the country that does the right thing.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
Romney has yet to pull any big guns out, the man has been trying to become president for a long time, and will change his views and beliefs or do whatever it takes to win.

I really hope Obama beats him if he is the nominee however.


_______________________________

As for Syria, if the UN can't get off its lazy ass, I say we give Russia the finger, and go in there and remove their government and save some lives. If our allies want to help, they can. This isn't about playing world police...

This is about being the country that does the right thing.



What do you mean by this? What big guns are you talking about? An advertising blitz? We've seen what he is willing to do with that. People keep talking about how he is a jedi and has been training for this day for years, that he is an ultimate debater, etc. He has only really had one decent to good debate performance, and it was after he hired a guy to specifically help him for one debate (and then subsequently fired him).
 

Chichikov

Member
As for Syria, if the UN can't get off its lazy ass, I say we give Russia the finger, and go in there and remove their government and save some lives. If our allies want to help, they can. This isn't about playing world police...

This is about being the country that does the right thing.
I'm not sure you can improve the situation in Syria by military action.
Not every problem in the world can solved by drones.
 
What do you mean by this? What big guns are you talking about? An advertising blitz? We've seen what he is willing to do with that. People keep talking about how he is a jedi and has been training for this day for years, that he is an ultimate debater, etc. He has only really had one decent to good debate performance, and it was after he hired a guy to specifically help him for one debate (and then subsequently fired him).

You have it backwards Obama is the Jedi, he jedi mind tricked people into saying hope and change with him :p I jest, I jest.

All I'm saying is wait for the general election, then we will truly know how he will do.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
You have it backwards Obama is the Jedi, he jedi mind tricked people into saying hope and change with him :p I jest, I jest.

All I'm saying is wait for the general election, then we will truly know how he will do.

The primaries are a good testing ground. Think of it as the Jedi trials.
 

Mike M

Nick N
Here's a funny thought I just had. They're spending $100 million. They're putting that money into the economy. They're hiring advertisers, filmmakers, video editors, all sorts of staff to make their ads. Ads which will probably, among other things, blame Obama for the economy.


They're improving the economy, to say the economy's not improving.

I wonder if the obscene amount of money being spent on this election will actually be enough to measurably move the needle...
 

DasRaven

Member
I'm not a huge fan of this whole American superpower empire shit, but if you look at it through this prism, Obama's shifting of focus from Europe to the Pacific rim is a very smart strategic move, and one that is not covered by the media nearly enough.

Best part of draw downs is that they are basically permanent. It isn't like the next President can just reinstall them overseas without good reason.
 
And you think an invasion can improve the situation?
Or bombing of infrastructure?

There are limitation to what military power can achieve, and yes, sometime inaction is the best (or more accurately, least bad) option.

In this situation, I think we should send in some special forces, eliminate their leader, quickly eradicate the problem.

Hopefully with help from a couple other countries. Drones would be nice too. Blockade and destroy any arms shipments coming into the opposing army.
 

Chichikov

Member
You have it backwards Obama is the Jedi, he jedi mind tricked people into saying hope and change with him :p I jest, I jest.

Isn't it's about time we stop using "jedi" as a compliment?

66s07.jpg


Just saying.

Oh, wait, JayDubya is banned. this is not going to be nearly as fun...

In this situation, I think we should send in some special forces, eliminate their leader, quickly eradicate the problem.

Hopefully with help from a couple other countries. Drones would be nice too. Blockade and destroy any arms shipments coming into the opposing army.
I don't think you can affect positive change by political assassination.
Also, I don't really think we have the capacity to execute that mission in a surgical way.
 
In this situation, I think we should send in some special forces, eliminate their leader, quickly eradicate the problem.

Hopefully with help from a couple other countries. Drones would be nice too. Blockade and destroy any arms shipments coming into the opposing army.

You honestly think a group of special forces eliminating Assad would make things better?
 

Jackson50

Member
I don't remember which old PoliGAF megathread the posts would be in, but you should look through my/Jackson50's post history from around the time when the Libya intervention was being discussed-we both opposed it, and we talked about some reasons to be skeptical about the ability to impose change from without, whether you're coming from the neoconservative or the liberal interventionist perspective. It's indicative of the arbitrariness of the rationale for the Libyan intervention that there have been over twice the number of casualties in the Syrian uprising that there were in the Libyan uprising, and yet most of the response from the Western world in the former case has been, "Guys! Stop!"
Right. And I'd say our reasons are apropos to Syria. Qaddafi's regime was an especially frail sultanistic regime, yet it proved difficult to depose. Moreover, the Libyan opposition was more unified and operated over a concentrated, propitious geographic range. None of that applies to Syria. We'd be opposing a sturdier regime in conjunction with a less unified opposition in a country unfavorable to intervention. Additionally, whither the aftermath?
As for Syria, if the UN can't get off its lazy ass, I say we give Russia the finger, and go in there and remove their government and save some lives. If our allies want to help, they can. This isn't about playing world police...

This is about being the country that does the right thing.
Right. Unilateralist excursions into Middle Eastern states have proven productive. First, only a prodigious military effort can effect regime change. A NFZ would prove ineffective; note, this also pertains to the proposition of employing drones. That necessitates extensive operations in dense urban terrain against ambiguous targets with meager intelligence. That is a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, the proposition of assassinating Assad with special operations would prove prohibitively perilous. First, the logistical requirements are immense. They would have to identify a viable route into Syria and identify a viable configuration to land the special forces. Then, they would have to attack a likely heavily guarded compound; this necessitates heavier munitions which only compounds the logistical problems. Meanwhile, the presence of foreign forces would induce a hostile response from proximate security and military forces. The amount of preparation and intelligence required for a successful operation is considerable. Sending in special forces is not a viable option.

Furthermore, preceding any intervention, we must prepare a viable replacement for the regime. The inevitable power vacuum engendered by Assad's deposition would be tremendous. Who would inherit power? As we have witnessed in Libya, Iraq, and even Egypt, systemic transitions are terribly difficult. Would the United States administer Syria? Would an international coalition? It's imperative we produce viable, feasible answers to these questions before we intervene.

So, no. I do not support a military intervention. Doing the right thing is desirable. Lamentably, it's not always feasible.
Step in the right direction me thinks. We can also look at cutting troop presence further in Europe and do same from Asia too.
I doubt we'll reduce our presence in Asia. That contradicts the purpose of this move. Obama has been explicit about restructuring our global presence. The objective is to configure our presence to correspond to regions of vital interest. Europe is largely united, secure from external threats, and a willing participant in the liberal economic order. Moreover, our hegemony is institutionalized through various mechanisms; primarily, NATO and the mutual defense pact. Conversely, Asia is a region of burgeoning vital interest. We reduce our presence in Europe to expand our presence in Asia.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Here's a funny thought I just had. They're spending $100 million. They're putting that money into the economy. They're hiring advertisers, filmmakers, video editors, all sorts of staff to make their ads. Ads which will probably, among other things, blame Obama for the economy.


They're improving the economy, to say the economy's not improving.

Heh, yeah I was thinking the same thing the other day. This also means that it's probably a good time to rub shoulders with some Democractic campaign organizers for those needing work at the moment.



Btw, I keep hearing Obama's gonna have a billion dollar campaign, but someone posted some numbers a few days ago that showed he only had 1/10 of that. So where are people getting this billion number from?
 

Jackson50

Member
The National Journal is teasing a potentially momentous post-caucus press conference for Newt. Normally, I'd assign a press conference little value. But this is Newt Gingrich. Who knows what big ideas he'll unleash on us.
 

Tim-E

Member
Heh, yeah I was thinking the same thing the other day. This also means that it's probably a good time to rub shoulders with some Democractic campaign organizers for those needing work at the moment.



Btw, I keep hearing Obama's gonna have a billion dollar campaign, but someone posted some numbers a few days ago that showed he only had 1/10 of that. So where are people getting this billion number from?

If I recall correctly, Messina in a video said that number was bullshit from the beginning.
 
The National Journal is teasing a potentially momentous post-caucus press conference for Newt. Normally, I'd assign a press conference little value. But this is Newt Gingrich. Who knows what big ideas he'll unleash on us.

I hope its some massive amazing big idea, need some excitement.

I'm also curious what he might come up with.
 
Apparently, keeping a police state in place is expensive.

Who would have thunk it?

Border Patrol agents have racked up daily overtime at a cost of about $1.4 billion in the past six years while the number of arrests of illegal border crossers has fallen to the lowest level in nearly 40 years, an Associated Press analysis of agency records finds.

Since the 2006 budget year, the agency charged with stopping would-be illegal border crossers and smugglers from making it into the U.S. over land and sea borders has spent more than $1.4 billion on what is described as "administrative uncontrollable overtime," according to the data provided by the Border Patrol. In practical terms, agents average two hours a day in overtime.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/02/04/2709452/ap-analysis-border-patrol-ot-up.html#storylink=cpy
 
Gingrich met with his top donors today, including Sheldon Adelson. This news plus the press conference makes me wonder if he's dropping out.

He also missed a meeting with Brian Sandoval (Nevada's governor) recently, an odd thing to do when you're trying to get endorsements
 
Gingrich met with his top donors today, including Sheldon Adelson. This news plus the press conference makes me wonder if he's dropping out.

He also missed a meeting with Brian Sandoval (Nevada's governor) recently, an odd thing to do when you're trying to get endorsements

This would really surprise me, and it would also give Ron Paul a big boost I imagine.
 

mcgruber

Member
Gaf, educate me. Does the primary traditionally go on until April or May? Do people drop out after Super Tuesday results?

i searched for info, found nothing
 

Amir0x

Banned
Gingrich met with his top donors today, including Sheldon Adelson. This news plus the press conference makes me wonder if he's dropping out.

He also missed a meeting with Brian Sandoval (Nevada's governor) recently, an odd thing to do when you're trying to get endorsements

If he's dropping out the game's set then. I wonder what his speech would be like... he hates Romney so much
 

Tim-E

Member
Come on, independent run! Maybe he will drop out of the primary to save money and energy to murder Romney in the general.

...I can dream, can't I?
 
Maybe he'll reveal there is a moon state with more delegates than all 50 US states combined, and he won it overwhelmingly so he's the nominee.

And also that he ran for the Democratic nomination there too and beat Obama, so he's going to be both of the major party nominees.
 
Gaf, educate me. Does the primary traditionally go on until April or May? Do people drop out after Super Tuesday results?

i searched for info, found nothing

Officially, primaries last until one candidate gets enough delegates to clinch the nomination (I think it's 1,440). That process could end in April/May, or it could last all the way until the convention.
 
Gaf, educate me. Does the primary traditionally go on until April or May? Do people drop out after Super Tuesday results?

i searched for info, found nothing

Usually super tuesday makes things pretty damn obvious.

Officially, not till well after.

Candidates drop out at all points, usually when their big bet fails.

IE: Michelle after losing Iowa
Hunstman after losing NH
Jules after losing Florida

etc etc

If they cant win "their" state, they know its pointless.

RP wont drop out because he knows he wont win, hes just around to get his message out and gather delegates to force positions.

Ricky S will drop out soon because his big Iowa / evangelical bump died. Expect him to fall out after he loses whatever southern state is next.

Newt is in it for blood.
 

Zoibie

Member
Wow, Santorum really cranking out that spiel, quoting Thatcher and criticising the NHS. Also doesn't seem to be a fan of the Conservative Party apparently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom