• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney puts forth his foreign policy platform

Velvet Elvis said:
Seriously? That's your ignorant, black-and-white rationale in regards to foreign policy? Only "enemies" are a threat?
Click to expand...

It's called understanding the english language.

threat
noun
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.
Click to expand...
 
Tettsuo said:
Sorry, that makes no sense. Why should Russia throw away anything? They are not enemies of the US and haven't been so for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Pure comedy...

who is building Irans nuclear reactors?...
 
Tettsuo said:
It's called understanding the english language.
Click to expand...

As mentioned before, when Russia helps our enemies build nuclear capabilities, that's a threat. Go hold your breath and stomp your feet if you don't like it, but that's exactly what's going on.
 
Tettsuo said:
Iranians with American degrees in physics.
Click to expand...

whats it like in the magic garden today? is the weather nice?...

thank for showing you have not a clue..
 
Travis007 said:
whats it like in the magic garden today? is the weather nice?...

thank for showing you have not a clue..
Click to expand...

If you have proof to the contrary, please put up or shut up.
 
Fisher said:
Of course they are. I mean why else would they spy on us as often as they do? Friends like to keep tabs on friends :)
Click to expand...

See, you get it. It's a one way relationship with them.

I don't see Israel as our enemy, and I don't see Russia as our enemy either. The biggest threats to our interests are Iran and China, IMO. Then Russia. I don't see any need to pursue antagonistic relations with them. In fact, it's in our interest to be friendly. Theirs too. China and Russia get that. Iran, not so much.
 
Tettsuo said:
If you have proof to the contrary, please put up or shut up.
Click to expand...


so again Mitt is correct and you have not a clue.. but let me guess youre voting Obama


That Russia is building the reactors is COMMON KNOWLEDGE...
 
Tettsuo said:
If you have proof to the contrary, please put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

how much you want?...



Russia will switch on Iran’s first nuclear power plant tomorrow as the government seeks to bolster its global influence by acting as a power broker between the U.S. and its European allies and the Persian Gulf nation.

Rosatom Corp., the state-run Russian company building the plant at Bushehr in southern Iran, plans to open it after repeated delays over 15 years of construction.

Enlarge image
Russia Opening Iran Nuclear Plant Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images
Rosatom Corp., the state-run Russian company building the plant at Bushehr in southern Iran, plans to open it after repeated delays over 15 years of construction.

Rosatom Corp., the state-run Russian company building the plant at Bushehr in southern Iran, plans to open it after repeated delays over 15 years of construction. Photographer: Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images
Aug. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Meir Javedanfar, an analyst at Middle East Economic and Political Analysis Co., talks about Iran's nuclear ambitions and the activation of a nuclear power plant in Bushehr by the Russia's state-run Rosatom Corp. He speaks from Tel Aviv with Andrea Catherwood on Bloomberg Television's "The Pulse." (Source: Bloomberg)
.Iran, under United Nations sanctions because of concern it is concealing a nuclear weapons program, will become the first Middle East country to produce atomic energy when Bushehr goes online. Russia, which joined U.S.-led efforts to tighten the UN embargo, is using the opening to soothe Iranian anger while keeping a potential energy rival isolated.

“As long as there’s an Iran problem, the West will need Russia,” said Rajab Safarov, head of the Center for Contemporary Iranian Studies in Moscow. “And Russia will feel like an important geopolitical player
snip...
Russia Opening Iran Nuclear Plant Helps Bid to Be Power Broker - Bloomberg
 
Travis007 said:
so again Mitt is correct and you have not a clue.. but let me guess youre voting Obama


That Russia is building the reactors is COMMON KNOWLEDGE...
Click to expand...

Nothing about weapons, just power. Russia is now an enemy because Iran is paying for them to build power plants. Brilliant! The free market is only free for a few.
 
Tettsuo said:
Nothing about weapons, just power. Russia is now an enemy because Iran is paying for them to build power plants. Brilliant!
Click to expand...


wow... simply wow..

who will maintain them...?


This is too easy.. its not even my birthday..
 
Travis007 said:
wow... simply wow..

who will maintain them...?

This is too easy.. its not even my birthday..
Click to expand...

Again, a power plant. Is it America's opinion that Iran can't have anything nuclear related? Are we suppose to force them to stay in the dark ages because we're afraid of every shadow?
 
Travis007 said:
wow... simply wow..

who will maintain them...?


This is too easy.. its not even my birthday..
Click to expand...


Russia doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons anymore than anybody else does. They're trying to keep the Iranian situation under their control, because Iran is a competitor on the oil and natural gas markets. All of this is outlined in your article, that Russia is basically feeding just enough tension that it's good for their business. If Iran tries to get in on their European market for natural gas, they'll clamp down pretty quick.

They have their own interests that they're looking out for. If they really wanted Iran to have the bomb, don't you think they would have just given them the plans to build one?
 
Fisher said:
In Virginia, Mitt Romney calls for change of course in Middle East - The Washington Post

Opinions?
Click to expand...

There's no need for me to read the article to form an opinion about it, because anyone w 1/4 of a brain already knows that romney said that a good foreign policy is all about dropping the most bombs.

All conservatives believe that dropping the most bombs is what good foreign policy is all about.

So all Obama or Biden has to do in a foreign policy debate is just say "We'll nuke the whole damn Middle East" and they'll win over all the GOPers.

Hello, obvious :rolleyes:
 
Someone should remind Mitt that it costs a lot of money to invade foreign countries and there is no possible way he can balance the budget when he wants to charge another war on the credit card. Part of fiscal responsibility is to pull back on showing all our shiny new military toys to some farmers in the middle east. The world is not going to help us and we cannot afford another war.

How is it that republicans actually think Mitt is going to shrink the debt while getting us into more costly wars? There is being bad at math, and then there is flat out lying.
 
rocket88 said:
It's because Romney wants to increase their budget. They get more money and more toys, of course they like that.
Click to expand...

Your speculated noted, but it doesn't look like military leadership was polled. So apparently polls that don't show what you want aren't credible?
 
Honestly - John Bolton or Hillary Clinton they are both the same.

Get all the oil, and slaughter whomever gets in your way.
 
Wiseone said:
You can find the actual text of the speech here:
Text of Romney Speech on Foreign Policy at VMI - Washington Wire - WSJ

And here are my general thoughts:

1) He's correct that the attacks in Benghazi were not random nor the result of a video but obviously a well planned attack that must have been in the works well before the video came out that sparked the protests. And I think he did a good job of drawing a line between the protests in places like Cairo and the attacks in Benghazi, where Cario was spontaneous, or at least very quickly planned, and a reaction to the video whereas Benghazi was not.

2) He blames the President for the withdraw of US Forces from Iraq and blames him again for the violence that continues in that country and the growing influence of Iran in that country. Fact is however that the withdraw was decided under Bush and the treaty that created the timeline for it was also done under Bush, Iraq being an independant nation, specifically told the US to remove itself from their country. The only way to stay at that point would have been to violate the independance of a government which we helped create over several years, basically stating we did not recognize our own creation and destroying everything we had done in Iraq. And for what possible gains, none were offered.


3) The lack of so many specifics. He says "we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated" but does not once say how. Or "And I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military, I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure" but how will it be paid for? And he mentions that he'll stick to the Afghan withdraw date of 2014 but says " I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014." Not a detailed response at all, I'm everyone can agree we want that.

4) He promises to expand the Navy by refering to how its size is smaller than it has even been since 1916. This ignores everything about modern Naval War which like so much in life is more a matter of quality not quanity, if you have one ship that can cover an area of space that it would take several older ships to cover, why do you need the same number of the newer ships? Especially when the new ships cost so much more per unit than the older one, which is understandable because they are so much more advanced.

5) He also calls upon NATO allies to increase their defense spending to make the Alliance work on more equal terms, this I entirely agree with but I think he sells the President short and makes it appear like an easier goal than it really is. There's no way to compel these countries to spend more than they want to on Defense, and the US has been trying since Bush to accomplish this and it hasn't happened, mostly due to the fact that many of our NATO allies don't agree or wish to support our wars.
Click to expand...

Very nice summary.

I would add that the comparison with world events facing Secretary of State George Marshall and President Truman (why President Truman wasn't mentioned is unclear) were structurally different from those today. Europe was at a cross roads, caught between free nations trying to rebuild and the threat of encroaching Soviet influence beyond the sphere of Eastern Europe. Today's "liberation" movements are not synonymous with the movements advocating a deepening of freedom in Western Europe. Some of today's movements seek little more than to topple authoritarian regimes with end goals that are not necessarily liberal in nature.

Having said that, the events and actors in Syria are no less complex than they were in Libya. Merely arming the anti-Assad elements does not assure that Syria would become a liberal democracy nor adopt more policies more favorable to U.S. interests. The consequences of a power vacuum could actually be highly destabilizing and they could create opportunities to be exploited by radical elements.

I favor clarity in U.S. foreign policy grounded in the nation's interests. I do believe that there should be a measure of caution before the U.S. commits itself to intervention (direct or indirect) in civil conflicts, especially when the motives and goals of the actors are uncertain at best and the risks of increased instability are large.
 
tererun said:
Someone should remind Mitt that it costs a lot of money to invade foreign countries and there is no possible way he can balance the budget when he wants to charge another war on the credit card. Part of fiscal responsibility is to pull back on showing all our shiny new military toys to some farmers in the middle east. The world is not going to help us and we cannot afford another war.

How is it that republicans actually think Mitt is going to shrink the debt while getting us into more costly wars? There is being bad at math, and then there is flat out lying.
Click to expand...

Since we are no longer in Iraq please explain to us the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit Obama had in fiscal year 2012? You are like far too many liberals ignoring that the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are in the 10.6 trillion dollar debt Obama inherited. He had a chance to end the war in Afghanistan but chose not to and then not give the commanders the troops they wanted, cutting their request by 10,000. Liberals still support this empty suit and not sure what results would ever change that support
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom