Foreign Policy

bravo said:
Of course HOPE is a much better policy.......a real strategy for US foreign policy.....lmao
Click to expand...

So, tell me what you like, what point of Romney's foreign policy is worth electing him. Now remember, his advisors are one of those that helped GW Bush, but, oh, yeh that's right, you loved Bush nd his two wars!
 
There is virtually NO DIFFERENCE between the foreign policy of Obama or Romney.

Obama and Romney: different rhetoric but foreign policies are the same

Washington insiders say the only unknown US factor in international affairs is how Mitt Romney would react in a crisis

excerpt -

Spencer Ackerman, a writer on national security for Wired magazine, even suggested that with today's speech, Romney was in effect running "for Obama's second term".

"So Romney's foreign policy would be Obama's foreign policy, just with meaner things to say about Obama?," Ackerman tweeted.

On a range of the major foreign affairs issues outlined by Romney, the harsh words directed at Obama are not matched by a significant difference in policy. So, on the Arab spring, Romney promised to support the democratic movements across North Africa, including in Libya, where he had been a vocal sceptic over western intervention.

Similarly, despite his close links with Binyamin Netanyahu and his cynicism over the chance of a Middle East peace settlement inadvertently revealed in a leaked video last month, Romney official policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the long-term Washington orthodoxy of support for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside its Jewish neighbour. A Romney administration might be less active than a second Obama term in pursuing such a two-state solution, but Robert Malley, a Middle East expert at the International Crisis Group, believes that Obama too "sees there is, right now, no opportunity for a breakthrough."

On Afghanistan too, Romney portrays himself as a fierce critic of Obama policy, but his formula for extricating the US – "a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014" – is identical to Obama's plan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/08/us-presidiential-candidates-foreign-policy

Beyond the rhetoric, it's the same shit.

War, war, and more war.
 
Obama's foreign policy is not ideal, but it is an improvement over Bush. Johnson could afford to be bold leading a party with nothing to lose. Hillary would have strangled Obama if he actually acted on his promises. I knew he was full of bs on that anyway and told the supposed anti war left he was.

Will Romney etch-a-sketch his way out of his sabre rattling rhetoric? If so how many idiots will buy into/excuse it? Will Obama allow him to in a different format?

Romney can easily be painted as an extremist here and I don't think most voters are terribly disappointed with Obama's results in this area.
 
TheJanitor said:
Obama's foreign policy is not ideal, but it is an improvement over Bush. Johnson could afford to be bold leading a party with nothing to lose. Hillary would have strangled Obama if he actually acted on his promises. I knew he was full of bs on that anyway and told the supposed anti war left he was.

Will Romney etch-a-sketch his way out of his sabre rattling rhetoric? If so how many idiots will buy into/excuse it? Will Obama allow him to in a different format?

Romney can easily be painted as an extremist here and I don't think most voters are terribly disappointed with Obama's results in this area.
Click to expand...

Obama's foreign policy is to the right of George Bush's.

Most democrats who were screaming at Bush aren't going to say shit about Obama's needless wars for profit.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Iraq, Iraq and Iraq.
Click to expand...

We can get to Iraq .. and the lie that Obama ended the Iraq War .. but Pakistan and Obama's use of drones is just one area where Obama's foreign policy is to the right of Bush.

Can you speak to that?

By the way, Obama tried to extend the date of withdrawal from Iraq ,, the Iraqis said Hell no.
 
blackascoal said:
We can get to Iraq .. and the lie that Obama ended the Iraq War .. but Pakistan and Obama's use of drones is just one area where Obama's foreign policy is to the right of Bush.

Can you speak to that?
Click to expand...

First, setting Iraq aside in a discussion about Bush's foreign policy as compared to Obama is disingenuous at best. Iraq was the cornerstone of Bush's foreign policy vision.

In any event, I don't think Obama's use of drones in Pakistan is actually to the right of Bush. It's a continuation of what Bush was doing.


blackascoal said:
By the way, Obama tried to extend the date of withdrawal from Iraq ,, the Iraqis said Hell no.
Click to expand...

Even assuming this is true, so what?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
First, setting Iraq aside in a discussion about Bush's foreign policy as compared to Obama is disingenuous at best. Iraq was the cornerstone of Bush's foreign policy vision.

In any event, I don't think Obama's use of drones in Pakistan is actually to the right of Bush. It's a continuation of what Bush was doing.

Even assuming this is true, so what?
Click to expand...

I have no problem discussing Iraq.

Obama did not end the war in Iraq. The Status of Forces Agreement did .. AND, Obama tried to extend the withdrawal beyond the date set by the SOFA.

Pakistan: Obama took the drone program FAR beyond what Bush was doing with it. Obama's drones are at the center of rising anti-americanism and protests all over the world. He's killing far more innocent people than actual terrorists. He's killed about 200 innocent children and lots of innocent women.

What Obama is doing in Pakistan is unquestionably to the right of George Bush.

Libya: Obama did exactly what Bush did and used lies and a false pretext to seek regime change in a peaceful and propeprous nation that posed NO threat to the US.

Guantanamo: Need I say more?

Iran: Same policies as Bush.

Africa: Obama has drones flying all over Africa, Bush did not. The US is currently operating a covert war throughout northern Africa. All out war against Mali is next.

Afghanistan: Same policies as Bush. In fact, Obama doubled down on the Bush policy and employed the Bush surge, which did nothing byt get a lot of people killed.

Can I mention NDAA and killing American citizens without trial?

To the second part of my comment about those who screamed at Bush but won't say shit about Obama's wars .. surely you're not going to challenge that.
 
If Obama loses, democrats will have opened the gates to Hell.

They didn't say shit to Obama on his brutal foreign policy, didn't say shit to him when he was killing Americans citizens without trial, didn't say shit when Obama endorsed NDAA, didn't say shit when he attacked Libya, didn't say shit when he used Al Queda to do it, didn't say shit when he started droning Pakistan and killing more innocent people .. in short, democrats didn't say shit to Obama about anything.

Guess what?

If Romney wins .. don't say shit.
 
blackascoal said:
If Obama loses, democrats will have opened the gates to Hell.

They didn't say shit to Obama on his brutal foreign policy, didn't say shit to him when he was killing Americans citizens without trial, didn't say shit when Obama endorsed NDAA, didn't say shit when he attacked Libya, didn't say shit when he used Al Queda to do it, didn't say shit when he started droning Pakistan and killing more innocent people .. in short, democrats didn't say shit to Obama about anything.

Guess what?

If Romney wins .. don't say shit.
Click to expand...

Sadly, the small percentage of Democrats who did speak up had little influence. I do not identify myself as a Democrat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top