Romney puts forth his foreign policy platform

[Fisher]

In Virginia, Mitt Romney calls for change of course in Middle East - The Washington Post

Opinions?

 

[PeteEU]

He sounded like a Republican from the 1980s.. with a 1980s point of view. Some of the crap he spouted out really scares me, plus where will he get the money for his massive military expansion?

 

[Fisher]

He sounded like a Republican from the 1980s.. with a 1980s point of view. Some of the crap he spouted out really scares me, plus where will he get the money for his massive military expansion?

Bake sales and car washes staffed by former welfare recipients overseen by Paul Ryan I think.

 

[PeteEU]

Not to mention the amount of lies, half truths and worse that was in the speech. He actually stated that Obama did not sign any free trade deals so far in his presidency.. bullllllll****. He has in fact signed 3 free trade agreements.. ups Mr Romney.. another lie from your side.

 

[Born Free]

Mitt Romney Just Hammered Obama On Libya In A Big, Wide-Ranging Foreign Policy Speech

Read more: Mitt Romney Foreign Policy Speech At VMI - Business Insider

 

[Fisher]

I watched the speech. "Hammered" is a bit of an overstatement. A lot of what he said parallels Obama somewhat.

 

[PeteEU]

Mitt Romney Just Hammered Obama On Libya In A Big, Wide-Ranging Foreign Policy Speech

Read more: Mitt Romney Foreign Policy Speech At VMI - Business Insider

Hardly a hammering. He told a bunch of half truths and lies and smeared a bit of cold war rhetoric on top to come out with a speech that his warmongering GOP right wing neo cons would love. The fact he has the balls to blame Obama for the with drawl from Iraq, and blaming Al Q for the increasing sectarian violence in Iraq.. not to mention the "weak" government .. I mean come on. First off, it was Bush that agreed to the terms of the withdrawal. The increased violence is sectarian. Al Q was basically destroyed in Iraq by the US and Iraq forces.. well self destructed is a better term. And then there is the "weak" government.. if he wanted a strong government then he should not have backed the removal of Saddam.. after all the Iraqi government is democratically elected and the US is behind the Kurdish north which is causing a big part of the instability in the political sphere.

So there was no hammering, just more inaccuracies, spin, half truths and out right lies by Romney.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Not to mention the amount of lies, half truths and worse that was in the speech. He actually stated that Obama did not sign any free trade deals so far in his presidency.. bullllllll****. He has in fact signed 3 free trade agreements.. ups Mr Romney.. another lie from your side.

I was curious about this so I did a bit more research on how free trade agreements are put into place. I always thought that treaties just involved the Senate, but I guess somehow this is different. The President, through his representatives, signs an agreement with another government. That agreement then has to be submitted to Congress for approval by both houses and then signed by the President.

Apparently, these three trade agreements were signed by the President in 2007. In 2011, the President submitted these agreements to Congress where they were approved by both houses and then signed by the President.

I think it would have been more accurate for Romney to say that Obama hasn't negotiated to a signed agreement any trade pacts rather than saying that he didn't sign any when clearly he signed the congressionally approved agreement negotiated by his predecessor.

 

[Tettsuo]

I can't take serious any foreign policy comments from a man who believes Russian is America's main enemy in 2012.

 

[joko104]

Obama is again not going to guess correctly Mitt Romney's next debate appearance.

 

[joko104]

I can't take serious any foreign policy comments from a man who believes Russian is America's main enemy in 2012.

LOL. Yeah, good thing Russia threw away all its ICBMs when the USSR disbanded. You got a link to exactly what date that was?

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Apparently, these three trade agreements were signed by the President in 2007. In 2011, the President submitted these agreements to Congress where they were approved by both houses and then signed by the President.

OH MY GOD!! DO YOU MEAN G.W. ACTUALLY STARTED THESE??? THE HORROR!!

Betcha Obama doesn't "blame" Bush for these, does he?

 

[rocket88]

LOL. Yeah, good thing Russia threw away all its ICBMs when the USSR disbanded. You got a link to exactly what date that was?

You don't think that al Qaeda and Iran are a little more pressing, then?

 

[Velvet Elvis]

I can't take serious any foreign policy comments from a man who believes Russian is America's main enemy in 2012.

No one said that Russia is our main enemy. They are, however, our biggest threat (outside of terrorism). Just because they are a "threat," doesn't automatically mean they're on the offensive, either. It just means that, of all the countries in the world, they're the one most likely to cause serious friction. Get your context in focus.

 

[Fisher]

I can't take serious any foreign policy comments from a man who believes Russian is America's main enemy in 2012.

I have seen talking heads mention in passing on a few different occasions that Russia did try to coordinate a massive bond dump with China to stick it to our economy during the banking collapse but China nixed the idea cold. Russia probably is still our main enemy generally speaking--has nothing to do with dem v. GOP.

 

[Tettsuo]

LOL. Yeah, good thing Russia threw away all its ICBMs when the USSR disbanded. You got a link to exactly what date that was?

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.

 

[rocket88]

The policy seems a bit inconsistent. He wants to "arm the Syrian rebels" and accuses Obama of abandoning them. Yet when Obama did arm rebels and get involved, as in Libya, he was slammed all over the place by righty commentators. I actually had a friend on Facebook slamming him for helping the Syrian rebels because of their ties to terrorist groups. Conveniently forgetting that Assad has ties to Hezbollah.

 

[Tettsuo]

No one said that Russia is our main enemy. They are, however, our biggest threat (outside of terrorism). Just because they are a "threat," doesn't automatically mean they're on the offensive, either. It just means that, of all the countries in the world, they're the one most likely to cause serious friction. Get your context in focus.

A threat isn't your enemy? That's pure nonsense. If someone threatens you or is a threat to you, they're not your enemies to Conservatives... brilliant.

 

[rocket88]

I have seen talking heads mention in passing on a few different occasions that Russia did try to coordinate a massive bond dump with China to stick it to our economy during the banking collapse but China nixed the idea cold. Russia probably is still our main enemy generally speaking--has nothing to do with dem v. GOP.

Israel also dumped a bunch of US Treasury bills. They are hailed as our "greatest ally!"

Israel Has Dumped 46 Percent of Its U.S. Treasury Bills; Russia 95 Percent | CNSNews.com

 

[Fisher]

Israel also dumped a bunch of US Treasury bills. They are hailed as our "greatest ally!"

Israel Has Dumped 46 Percent of Its U.S. Treasury Bills; Russia 95 Percent | CNSNews.com

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

 

[Velvet Elvis]

A threat isn't your enemy? That's pure nonsense. If someone threatens you or is a threat to you, they're not your enemies to Conservatives... brilliant.

Seriously? That's your ignorant, black-and-white rationale in regards to foreign policy? Only "enemies" are a threat?

 

[Wiseone]

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.

 

[Tettsuo]

I have seen talking heads mention in passing on a few different occasions that Russia did try to coordinate a massive bond dump with China to stick it to our economy during the banking collapse but China nixed the idea cold. Russia probably is still our main enemy generally speaking--has nothing to do with dem v. GOP.

That's business. It's in Russia's best economic interest to crush economic competitors. Ain't that how the US rose to power after WW2? They had no competition.

 

[Wiseone]

LOL. Yeah, good thing Russia threw away all its ICBMs when the USSR disbanded. You got a link to exactly what date that was?

Russia has no reason to start anything violent with the United States, you might as well be worried about French or British nukes. The biggest threat with Russian nukes isn't that Russia itself will use them, its that they aren't being accounted for correctly and one may slip away.

 

[Fisher]

That's business. It's in Russia's best economic interest to crush economic competitors. Ain't that how the US rose to power after WW2? They had no competition.

And yet China realized that would have been horrible for business. I think pretty much every President since the First George Bush has mishandled our relationship with Russia to our detriment. I get that Russia does not like us for reasons other than business ones. I think it is unfortunate that what is could have been better. Russia, however, has a lot of new money and a lot of old weapons. They are still a superpower in my book whether people agree or not.