Conservative,
Let's be honest about Romney's foreign policy. His rhetoric is nothing more than a retread from the Reagan era and that's fine if you're of the hard-Right set who wants desperately to resurrect the ideals of a real Conservative leader. But Romney's not Reagan - not even close! But you guys, you keep working hard to convince yourselves that you have someone who's Reagan-ess. Lord know Republicans have been tripping all over themselves since the GOP primaries when it became clear he would be your party's nominee. (Or did you? See "The Norquist" below). You've had to force yourselves to like him when truth is you guys wanted someone else to lead your party. It's like putting a bitter bite of food in your mouth at a formal dining event and you're sitting at the head table but you don't want to be rude and spit that bit out while the host is looking. So you swallow...
hard...and you just take it. That's where many Republicans are with Romney. You accept him because you have to, not because you want to.
Romney's foreign policy is either: a) a rehash of old ideas, i.e., supporting puppet regimes but calling it "spreading democracy"; and, b) mirroring current foreign policy measures by the Obama Administration. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, that's different about what he'd do that isn't being done today. From his
Middle-East issues website:
To protect our enduring national interests and to promote our ideals, a Romney administration will pursue a strategy of supporting groups and governments across the Middle East to advance the values of representative government, economic opportunity, and human rights, and opposing any extension of Iranian or jihadist influence.
Ladies and gentlemen, we tried this before - TWICE - and got SADDAM HUSSIEN and OSAMA BIN LADEN!
So, other than trying to institute more puppet regimes, what exactly would he do differently?
He may not like that combat troops were pulled from Iraq, but when you have a pre-arranged schedule of withdrawl instituted by your predecessor AND the country inwhich the previous and current Presidents worked hard to bring a long war to an end while reminding the country that "democracy must hold" AND (this part is important so pay attention) the President of Iraq (or Prime Minister or whatever that country's leader calls himself) all but tells the Presidnet of the "liberating" nation to leave - it no longers desires or requires their help militarily - you have no choice but to leave unless you want to extend an already protracted war. So, I ask you when exactly were we to let this new democratic Iraq begin to rule itself again? Stay in country another year? Two years? Five years? Another decade? When does the parent let the child grow up and start taking care of itself?
On Iran, I laugh at Republicans on this issue. Why? Because Iran's been a thorn in America's side since 1979. Yet, here we are 22 years, five Administrations and three Republican presidents later and not one of them dared to take on Ahmadinejad directly. Instead, every one of them from Reagan to Obama have used sanctions as a means to pressure Iran from continuing their nuclear enrichment program, a measure Romney says he would continue and, moreover, gave credit to both GW Bush and Obama for pursuing.
From his
Iran issues website:
Mitt Romney will also push for greater diplomatic isolation of Iran.
Translation: More sactions. Not a direct military strike against Iran which he has all but eluded to in order to gain support from the far-Right, but sanctions. But I'll give him credit where credit is due. He's not as much of a fool I thought him to be. Even he isn't dumb enough to take military options off the table. But hey, why push another war when you sound tough publicly while privately echo the exact same position on Iran as the current President:
U.S. policy toward Iran must begin with an understanding on Iran’s part that a military option to deal with their nuclear weapons program is very real and very credible.
Well, I'll be damned! Isn't that the exact same position as President Obama? That Romney sure would be tougher on Iran, won't he? :roll:
On the
Israel-Palistine issue:
As president, Mitt Romney will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. He will reject any measure that would frustrate direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Now, where have we heard this before? Oh, yeah...his address to the UN Security Counsel last year (not to mention in his 2012 SOUA):
President Barack Obama addressed a looming diplomatic showdown between his administration and the Palestinians regarding its intentions for statehood head-on Wednesday, devoting much of his United Nations address to the contentious subject and reiterating U.S. opposition to a vote.
Obama has been trying for months to convince the Palestinians not to bring the issue of statehood recognition up to a vote at the world body—either before its Security Council or the General Assembly—but to return to the negotiating table with Israel.
Negotiations directly with their Mideast neighbor, Obama stressed, is the only avenue for a lasting, peaceful solution to the ongoing, decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which revolves around the establishment of defined, agreed-upon borders for both, as well as for their security.
Should Palestine move for such a vote, as its officials have stated are its intention, Obama made it clear the U.S. would not support it.
“One year ago, I stood at this podium and called for an independent Palestine,” Obama said. “I believed then—and I believe now—that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that genuine peace can only be realized between Israelis and Palestinians themselves.
Source:
Obama: Palestinian State Through Negotiation, Not U.N. Vote | Long Island Press
Our ironclad commitment -- and I mean ironclad -- to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.
Source:
2012 SOUA
There are alot of examples just like the one's above where Romney tries real hard to come across as being vastly different from Obama on foreign policy, but the truth is he'd do exactly the same things - that is, unless you believe "The Norquist" when he essentially said, "Mitt Romney will do exactly as he's told."
Sources:
NBA video
Norquist: Romney Will Do As Told
From this point forward, people need to debate the topic. Some here have gotten off track and are focusing on each other and not in a civil way. Thanks all. 
