foreign policy debate

[JJ Husker]

Rather, I think that he wanted to distance himself from W's policies, make people understand that he isn't going to come in guns-a-blazin and willy-nilly get us embroiled in another war, and to purposefully look more Presidential. I feel he was successful in that regard.

 

The abundance of rhetoric he's dropped regarding Iran and America's involvement in Syria (or lack thereof) pretty much refutes that.

I simply look at how things have gone with Iran and Syria over the last four years. You sure can't claim things have improved with these two. Assad (sp) is still killing people (the number 30,000 sticks in my mind for some reason ) and Iran is that much closer to being nuclear capable. I was glad to hear from both of them that the crippling sanctions seem to be taking their toll on Iran. I realize that another player other than Obama may not have led any more progress on these two issues but you surely can't blame Romney for pointing out that things aren't all sunshine and roses on these two issues. Both are serious issues that will continue to be after our election. If you think Obama is doing all he can do and the right things on these two issues, then last night should have reassured you that not much would change should Romney get elected. Don't ignore the reality that these two guys are running for office and have to, out of necessity, create some differences between themselves. That fact alone will generate some rhetoric from both of them. We don't have to like it but it is what it is.

[knapplc]

We can't do anything in Syria without sparking a major war, with either Iran or Russia, or both. We're arming the rebels as much as we can, but we cannot put boots on the ground - heck, we can't even take over the air and fly drones over there - without sparking a major war. At that point all bets are off and we're likely in World War III.

 

Romney told America to prepare for war with Iran back in December. We cannot afford another war. This is nonsense, and absolutely not identical to Obama's strategy of drawing down our forces overseas. Romney seems clueless about a lot of things, like the plight of regular Americans to name just one obvious one, but by far the most scary is his naive approach to foreign policy. His Romneyshambles tour of England, Israel and Poland should be a huge red flag to anyone who thinks he's got his head on straight. He can't even visit these countries without sticking his foot in his mouth. Romney will get eaten alive by Putin and Ahmadinejad. Do not want.

[knapplc]

Apparently Obama disoriented Romney with lasers from his eyeballs.

 

(CNN) -- The key to President Barack Obama's triumphant performance in Monday night's debate was not his command of the facts, his well-crafted answers or his cutting comeback lines. It was one thing: the stone cold, laser-like stare Obama shot his opponent when Mitt Romney was answering questions. I call it "Obama-stare" -- but unlike Obamacare, this Obama plan may not be good for your health.

 

 

 

For those, like me, who watch the other candidate closely when his opponent is answering a question, the contrast between Obama and Romney's reactions was like comparing Darth Vader with Honey Boo Boo. Romney's look vacillated between forced smiles to that of a person whose stomach was alarmingly churning and was worried he wouldn't make it to the bathroom in time.

 

LINK

 

 

The Obama Stare. Ooooohhh!!!!

 

[BigRedBuster]

That's funny.

 

Actually, when I watched the debate I thought...."Why the heck is he staring like he's pissed all the time. LIghten up a little."

 

It totally looked unnatural and strange to me.

[knapplc]

He needs to wear a mask like that character from the X-Men. He could hurt somebody with those.

[JJ Husker]

We can't do anything in Syria without sparking a major war, with either Iran or Russia, or both. We're arming the rebels as much as we can, but we cannot put boots on the ground - heck, we can't even take over the air and fly drones over there - without sparking a major war. At that point all bets are off and we're likely in World War III.

 

Agreed. It's a tough situation. IIRC, Romney did not propose putting boots on the ground in Syria last night. I believe he stated his actions would be similar to what Obama has done. But, he indicated that he would somehow do it better with quicker results. I don't necessarily believe that but, Obama is his opponent in this election, he has to make himself sound somewhat different. I can't fault the guy for for complaining that 30,000 are dead and Assad is still in charge. Those are facts. It's what you do in a campaign even if it amounts to no more than blustering.

 

Romney told America to prepare for war with Iran back in December. We cannot afford another war.

 

I have not heard him propose that we go to war with Iran. In fact his stance last night in the debate was identical to Obama's; apply international pressure with crippling sanctions and hope that does the trick but, nothing is off the table. They both indicated that they will not allow Iran to become nuclear capable with the understanding being military strikes might be inevitable. As far as telling America to prepare for war with Iran, there are some glaring differences between preparing for what may happen and encouraging it to happen. I also don't think it hurts for Iran to think that we are willing to go there. That alone should give them some pause in their nuclear aspirations.

 

This is nonsense, and absolutely not identical to Obama's strategy of drawing down our forces overseas.

 

Actually, Obama and Romney do have virtually identical stances about drawing down our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nonsense is when Obama tried to claim he was not for leaving residual troops behind in Iraq. It is a fact that he wanted to do that.

 

Romney seems clueless about a lot of things, like the plight of regular Americans to name just one obvious one,

 

I have seen no cluelessness by Romney about the plight of regular Americans. He knows the middle class is hurting. He also knows that the ultrarich need to lose some loopholes and deductions so that they begin paying more taxes than they currently are. But, he also recognizes that business, not government, creates jobs and he does not want to raise taxes on anyone if it will mean fewer jobs. Everyone on the left is saying "the math doesn't work". Well I think it does work. More jobs and more economic growth yields more people making more money which translates to higher tax revenues without raising rates. Eliminating deductions yields higher tax revenues without raising rates. Every dollar I get to keep has a chance to go back into the economy. Every dollar the government takes from me has a very good chance of being inefficiently used and therefore having much less of an impact than the full dollar amount taken.

 

but by far the most scary is his naive approach to foreign policy. His Romneyshambles tour of England, Israel and Poland should be a huge red flag to anyone who thinks he's got his head on straight. He can't even visit these countries without sticking his foot in his mouth. Romney will get eaten alive by Putin and Ahmadinejad. Do not want.

 

The naive approach is thinking the radicals in places like Iran will become less of a threat if we are gentler and kinder to them, apologize for our evil oil grubbing ways, if we appear to turn our back on their most hated enemy Israel. Yeah, Romney stuck his foot in his mouth a few times by accident. Sticking your foot in your mouth in placees like England, Poland, and Israel has far less consequences than giving the wrong message in hostile Mideast countries like Obama did on his apology tour. Achmadinejad will not eat Romney alive, at least no more so than he has Obama. That guy is just plain evil and crazy. Placating him is not on my list of things that need to be done. And Putin, well maybe Obama will become more flexible once this election is over... If that is your idea of how to handle foreigh affairs, I do not want.

 

 

You are letting your hatred of Romney color your perception of absolutely everything he says or does. He really is not that bad. But, I understand. I have a little of the same problem with Obama and he is not really that bad either. To be clear though, neither one of them is great. We're just on opposite sides of the fence.

[strigori]

The bigger issue is if he can stick his foot in his mouth bad enough in England to offend or annoy the country, what will happen with much, much more thin skinned nations like the entire Middle East. Think about it, a Youtube video started riots in a dozen nations. "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" is easily the most sensible way to work with that region. You have not been paying attention if you think Obama has been playing nice and softball. The sheer headcount of terrorist leaders alone would speak to that.

 

Iran is a complex issue. Starting a war, or backing Israel in a war would quite probably result in something we (as in the people of the world) do not want to see. And the hawkish attitude Romney takes there is dangerous. Want to bet he would have a different view if his boys were enlisted men?

 

You seem to be forgetting all the saber rattling Romney has done all throughout the campaign season. Add the spending he wants to add to the military, war is on his mind. Hell war is good for business, I'm willing to bet he has money invested in a number of companies who would stand to profit handsomely from keeping the war machine in high gear.

[JJ Husker]

The bigger issue is if he can stick his foot in his mouth bad enough in England to offend or annoy the country, what will happen with much, much more thin skinned nations like the entire Middle East. Think about it, a Youtube video started riots in a dozen nations. "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" is easily the most sensible way to work with that region. You have not been paying attention if you think Obama has been playing nice and softball. The sheer headcount of terrorist leaders alone would speak to that.

 

Iran is a complex issue. Starting a war, or backing Israel in a war would quite probably result in something we (as in the people of the world) do not want to see. And the hawkish attitude Romney takes there is dangerous. Want to bet he would have a different view if his boys were enlisted men?

 

You seem to be forgetting all the saber rattling Romney has done all throughout the campaign season. Add the spending he wants to add to the military, war is on his mind. Hell war is good for business, I'm willing to bet he has money invested in a number of companies who would stand to profit handsomely from keeping the war machine in high gear.

I agree that walk softly but carry a big stick is the way to deal with that region. But, make no mistakes, using that stick may be inevitible when dealing with radical whack jobs, of which they have plenty.

 

I am not as jaded as you with regards to Romney's drivng forces. I do not think for one minute his sons not being military men would mean he is more apt to put American lives at risk. I also do not think he would treat war as a way to grow business or that he would value personal profits over what is best for our country. I'm pretty sure he has enough money that he doesn't need to use the office of POTUS as a way to make more. It is one thing to try maximize your profits as a businessman. Isn't that what most rational people try to do? But, you haven't paid close enough attention to the type of person he is if you think he is in this for personal gain. I would equate that thinking with some of the crazier conspiracy theories I have heard.

[knapplc]

JJ, Romney's Iran stance has changed so much in the last year that you simply cannot believe what he said last night is factual. He went on national TV and basically said he'd be Obama II, right?

 

Then why did he write this Op/Ed in the Wall Street Journal last November?

 

Barack Obama has shredded his own credibility on Iran, conveyed an image of American weakness, and increased the prospect of a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the unstable Middle East.

 

The United States needs a very different policy.

 

Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war.

 

I want peace. And if I am president, I will begin by imposing a new round of far tougher economic sanctions on Iran. I will do this together with the world if we can, unilaterally if we must.

 

Know your candidate. Know the man you are supporting. Don't accuse me of "hatred" of Romney when he's said exactly what I said he said - heck, he even had the courtesy to write it down for us.

 

His own senior campaign adviser said it best:

 

 

 

The etch-a-sketch president. How comforting.

[JJ Husker]

Knapp- I read your linkex article, twice. I really have no idea how you feel this supports in any way your claims about Romney switching positions or being materially different than Obama. The only difference I can an see is that Romney would prefer to operate from a position of strength and be a little more threatening in showing it.

 

Let me ask you a question; Iran is still spinning the centrifuges and still is well on the way to being nuclear capable. If the sanctions fail to stop their nuclear aspirations, what do you propose we do about it? Have you eliminated any or all military options? The thing both candidates made clear is that Iran cannot, under any circumstances, become nuclear capable.

 

I am inclined to think that people like ahmadinajad are similar in many ways to Kruschev. They may only be swayed by real and immanently possible force. Look at the Cuban missile crisis to understand the mindset. I don't see where Romney's approach (per the linked op ed piece) is anything more than indicating we are extremely serious about our stated position that we will not allow Iran to gain nukes. The sooner they recognize that, the better IMO.

[JJ Husker]

Btw, sorry about some of the spelling and extra words or spaces. My phone pretty much sucks for posting more than one short sentence. The more I attempt to go back and edit, the worse it gets.

[strigori]

The bigger issue is if he can stick his foot in his mouth bad enough in England to offend or annoy the country, what will happen with much, much more thin skinned nations like the entire Middle East. Think about it, a Youtube video started riots in a dozen nations. "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" is easily the most sensible way to work with that region. You have not been paying attention if you think Obama has been playing nice and softball. The sheer headcount of terrorist leaders alone would speak to that.

 

Iran is a complex issue. Starting a war, or backing Israel in a war would quite probably result in something we (as in the people of the world) do not want to see. And the hawkish attitude Romney takes there is dangerous. Want to bet he would have a different view if his boys were enlisted men?

 

You seem to be forgetting all the saber rattling Romney has done all throughout the campaign season. Add the spending he wants to add to the military, war is on his mind. Hell war is good for business, I'm willing to bet he has money invested in a number of companies who would stand to profit handsomely from keeping the war machine in high gear.

I agree that walk softly but carry a big stick is the way to deal with that region. But, make no mistakes, using that stick may be inevitible when dealing with radical whack jobs, of which they have plenty.

 

I am not as jaded as you with regards to Romney's drivng forces. I do not think for one minute his sons not being military men would mean he is more apt to put American lives at risk. I also do not think he would treat war as a way to grow business or that he would value personal profits over what is best for our country. I'm pretty sure he has enough money that he doesn't need to use the office of POTUS as a way to make more. It is one thing to try maximize your profits as a businessman. Isn't that what most rational people try to do? But, you haven't paid close enough attention to the type of person he is if you think he is in this for personal gain. I would equate that thinking with some of the crazier conspiracy theories I have heard.

Ask yourself this. If the companies who are big defense contractors who supply the military with all the gear for war are giving to a candidate, what is their motive? War IS their business. A great many businessmen might meet you definition of 'rational' but many of those I would also not qualify as 'ethical' making money is the ONLY thing they are concerned with. If others have to die to stuff their pockets, so be it.

 

 

Yeah, movie quote, but don't think this is not how it happens.

 

I do not trust Romney. I do not trust his motivations. The only thing he has never changed stances on is the release of his tax info. I have a hard time believing he does anything that is not for money or personal 'glory' Selfless service is not in the make up of a life long investment banker.

 

I think anyone would be much more cautious about sending men and women into war if it was their own kid going. There is a reason there is a line "When the rich wage war, its the poor who die" Hell there was a way to buy your way out of the draft. Jaded? Perhaps. But I think that's just the way the world works, and has worked for a very, very long time. No longer are the nation leaders leading armies on the battle field.

[knapplc]

Knapp- I read your linkex article, twice. I really have no idea how you feel this supports in any way your claims about Romney switching positions or being materially different than Obama. The only difference I can an see is that Romney would prefer to operate from a position of strength and be a little more threatening in showing it.

 

Let me ask you a question; Iran is still spinning the centrifuges and still is well on the way to being nuclear capable. If the sanctions fail to stop their nuclear aspirations, what do you propose we do about it? Have you eliminated any or all military options? The thing both candidates made clear is that Iran cannot, under any circumstances, become nuclear capable.

 

I am inclined to think that people like ahmadinajad are similar in many ways to Kruschev. They may only be swayed by real and immanently possible force. Look at the Cuban missile crisis to understand the mindset. I don't see where Romney's approach (per the linked op ed piece) is anything more than indicating we are extremely serious about our stated position that we will not allow Iran to gain nukes. The sooner they recognize that, the better IMO.

 

So your answer is another Cold War? We may get there, but not with Iran. Pakistan has nukes, Iran has nukes, China has nukes and Russia has nukes. None of these countries are our best friends right now. What should we do, go into each country and take away their weapons? Of course you can't do that.

 

Iran is going to get nukes. Nothing Obama or Romney or anyone else does is going to stop that. If they want them, the technology is there, and Iran in particular has the brains to do it. So we can talk about sanctions and whatnot, but short of invading, which is colossally stupid, they're going to get them.

 

All this nonsense is just posturing. But posturing in itself can be dangerous. We were on the brink of World War III with the Cuban Missile Crisis, all of which was saber-rattling run amok. We don't need another guy in office who shoots his mouth off and doesn't understand how the world works. Nothing Romney has said on foreign policy is good for America. It's either isolationist, imperialist or straight up naive.

[JJ Husker]

I guess we're pretty much done on this issue knapp. If you came away with "another cold war" from what I said and you, unlike Obama, Romney, or most rational people in the civilized world, are willing to accept a nuclear Iran, then this discussion is largely pointless. I can appreciate attempting to avoid war at virtually all costs but not naively failing to accept that some things may require military action and, God forbid, possibly even US casualties. I'm with Romney and Obama on this one. We cannot allow nuclear weapons into this regimes hands. Period. It is not inevitable.

[BigRedBuster]

The bigger issue is if he can stick his foot in his mouth bad enough in England to offend or annoy the country, what will happen with much, much more thin skinned nations like the entire Middle East. Think about it, a Youtube video started riots in a dozen nations. "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" is easily the most sensible way to work with that region. You have not been paying attention if you think Obama has been playing nice and softball. The sheer headcount of terrorist leaders alone would speak to that.

 

Iran is a complex issue. Starting a war, or backing Israel in a war would quite probably result in something we (as in the people of the world) do not want to see. And the hawkish attitude Romney takes there is dangerous. Want to bet he would have a different view if his boys were enlisted men?

 

You seem to be forgetting all the saber rattling Romney has done all throughout the campaign season. Add the spending he wants to add to the military, war is on his mind. Hell war is good for business, I'm willing to bet he has money invested in a number of companies who would stand to profit handsomely from keeping the war machine in high gear.

I agree that walk softly but carry a big stick is the way to deal with that region. But, make no mistakes, using that stick may be inevitible when dealing with radical whack jobs, of which they have plenty.

 

I am not as jaded as you with regards to Romney's drivng forces. I do not think for one minute his sons not being military men would mean he is more apt to put American lives at risk. I also do not think he would treat war as a way to grow business or that he would value personal profits over what is best for our country. I'm pretty sure he has enough money that he doesn't need to use the office of POTUS as a way to make more. It is one thing to try maximize your profits as a businessman. Isn't that what most rational people try to do? But, you haven't paid close enough attention to the type of person he is if you think he is in this for personal gain. I would equate that thinking with some of the crazier conspiracy theories I have heard.

Ask yourself this. If the companies who are big defense contractors who supply the military with all the gear for war are giving to a candidate, what is their motive? War IS their business. A great many businessmen might meet you definition of 'rational' but many of those I would also not qualify as 'ethical' making money is the ONLY thing they are concerned with. If others have to die to stuff their pockets, so be it.

 

 

Yeah, movie quote, but don't think this is not how it happens.

 

I do not trust Romney. I do not trust his motivations. The only thing he has never changed stances on is the release of his tax info. I have a hard time believing he does anything that is not for money or personal 'glory' Selfless service is not in the make up of a life long investment banker.

 

I think anyone would be much more cautious about sending men and women into war if it was their own kid going. There is a reason there is a line "When the rich wage war, its the poor who die" Hell there was a way to buy your way out of the draft. Jaded? Perhaps. But I think that's just the way the world works, and has worked for a very, very long time. No longer are the nation leaders leading armies on the battle field.

 

 

I think the part I bolded is a completely unfair assessment of military contractors. I will guarantee you that what would make these people the happiest is if the military buys their products and then doesn't have to use them to kill anyone.

 

In fact, a HUGE amount of this money is spent on PROTECTING our troops and making sure they don't die. AND, we have spent literally billions of dollars on technology to only kill the few people we actually need to kill. Our military and it's contractors work tirelessly to prevent unnecessary loss of life and our military contractors are a big part of making that happen.