Now how about that. I invite our dear readers to cast their minds back to the 2012 presidential debates during which time Barack Obama famously shot off his mouth at Mitt Romney saying, "The 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back." You remember how clever and foreign policy savy the Left and the bulk of the Mainstream Media (no real differences there) thought Barack to be at the time because everyone recalled how the probably Dem Party presidential heir apparent Hillary Clinton had hit 'the reset button' with Russia during her time as Secretary of State thereupon having made all those Cold War decades of strained relationships between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union irrelevant? Sure you do because the Left and the MSM felt that the facile quip by Barack Obama utterly wiped out his still inexplicable rendition of being Clint Eastwood's famous empty chair during the first debate. So . . . why then does it appear that the U.S. military agrees whole-heartedly with Mitt Romney instead of the Left's perennial Clown-in-Chief when it comes down to current U.S. and Russian relationships? But as cutting to Obama's image as president as that happens to be it points to the larger foreign policy issue as well. Let's take yet another gander at the past in order to better grasp why the present is so very screwed up under Obama's foreign policy tenure and why the future is looking incredibly bleak. The Huffington Post itself pointed out the vast differences in the foreign policy approaches and level of wisdom between the two men. Only The Huffington Post got one thing askew . . . they intimated that Barack Obama was correct in his approaches and in his judgment call on the approaches that Mitt Romney was advocating. Well now we know that Mitt Romney was correct right down the line; oh and that the U.S. military pretty much agrees with Mitt Romney . . . um . . . right down the line. So let's tweak things and put some words into the mouth of former candidate Mitt Romney. Let's imagine that the man who should have become president back in 2012 said to Barack Obama, "Chicago of the late 1980s called for you President Obama. It appears that they wish you'd return to being a Community Organizer. That way the harm you do in the world would be localized and severely limited in nature and scope." Would of, could have and should have . . . if only President Romney were currently in charge of the nation today then at least the nation's foreign policy issues would be far better off today . . . or at least so the U.S. military seems to be thinking since they are now embracing Romney's perspective.
Fine. Let's say President Romney took over in 2013. What would/could he do to deal with Putin? Specifics, please, no nebulous verbiage like "leadership" or, if you do want to go there, how would that leadership be exercised?
That would be up to President Romney and his advisers now wouldn't it? Perhaps he would have recognized early on that Russia under Putin was getting ready to re-establish itself as a super power and then taken steps to delay that day or even guide that nation along less aggressively dangerous lines. Perhaps he simply would have had Putin assassinated and then blame it on the Syrian government. Perhaps something altogether different. But he would not Obama things . . . allowing everything to happen as it would and then point the trembling finger of blame at someone else.
All that really means is that the right is prepared to repeat a historical mistake, on the Peoples' dime.
Russia started to re establish itself in 2005, long before Obama came into office. So, that ship already sailed. Second, Romney would needed congress to re-establish that defensive missile program in Poland and Czech Republic. the problem with the GOP's assertions has to do with the GOP's failure in 2008 when the GOP did not take Russia seriously, much less make the provocative arguments that they are doing now. The other truth is that Putin does not care who is President and will still do t he same things . Putin knows that America's political prowess is deeply divided and knows how to exploit that divide. So, whatever the GOP decides to do, Putin has already countered it. And The GOP can blame themselves for the divisiveness that began with Newt Gingrich.
sttttreeeetttttcccchhhhhhhhhhh! What a ridiculous supposition, the cold war is long over, Romney's foreign policy statements indicate he was yet another blind neo-con who believed in the Project for a New American Century. A plan that sure screwed up many regions of the world and availed the US nothing, while costing it trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of lives, not to mention a huge amount of US international "political capital" and tens of thousands of rabid Islamists with guns running around.\ As for the military agreeing with Romney because they "dusted off" contingency preparedness plans that have not been required over the past 20 or 30 years, that is ridiculous. You think the military command would not have hundreds if not thousands of various plans based on various scenerios and players? You think that as the geo-political landscape continues to evolve that the military would not reference older plans in preparing new preparedness plans AS NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS? Given your OP it appears not. But feel free to attempt to contort facts into yet another spurious, specious and dumb anti-obama skree.
I guess math isn't your strong point (much like Economics wasn't McCain's strong point, as he admitted on video and then tried to say he didn't). 20 years ago was 1994, right smack dab in the middle of Slick Willie's reign. So it sounds like the military is nostalgic for the way things were done under Clinton, not Reagan.
Actually what it really means is that it's going to take a Republican to fix yet another Democrat blunder.
Russia would not have cared who was president because it wouldn't have made a lick of difference. We played our hand marching foolishly into Iraq and the American public is sick of war and untrusting of those who want more of it. Putin doesn't care who is president here as far as policy on his continent goes just like American politician's don't check with Putin when they're deciding what to do here.
There is nothing quite as delightful as watching a moronic know it all lecturing someone on something he himself is totally clueless about. I'm sure Vlad Putin craps his pants every time Obama take to the podium to issue yet another lightweight threat. In reality it's Barry Hussein Obama who is using foreign policy formula from the eighties...I liked it better when the feckless Jimmy Carter tried it first, however. Jimmy may have gotten little accomplished but at least he did not stand against Israel and help terrorists.
I thought it was republicans that love foreign entanglements, as long as the wealthiest benefit the most and they can blame the least wealthy, under our form of Capitalism.
For specifics would we not need to ask Romney? Asking a second party on this forum to pretend to be Romney is rather silly. QUOTE=Grizz;1064112396]Fine. Let's say President Romney took over in 2013. What would/could he do to deal with Putin? Specifics, please, no nebulous verbiage like "leadership" or, if you do want to go there, how would that leadership be exercised?[/QUOTE]
The main differences between the baaaaaad presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama is that at least Carter was conscientious and did his very best -- as dismal as that was. Barack Obama? Ummmm . . . apparently not so much. Insiders frequently say that Barack is bored by foreign policy and pretty much just wants to concentrate on domestic policy in stead; the irony being that Barack is not good at that either.
What steps? If you are so certain that Romney would do things better, then you better be prepared to show what he'd do better specifically. Of course, because when has murder of the sovereign head of state of another nation ever been a bad move, either practically or morally?
You mean like the clowns on THIS BOARD who said Obama just didn't use his WILL to make Iraq sign the SOFA so we could stay (and not leave on George Bush's schedule)?? VAPID, EMPTY, clueless, waste of keystrokes. 'WE ARE AMERICANS, they will bend to our will!' YEAH, right. Bush made us the ultimate paper tiger! The world watched our arrogance and then WE FAILED MISERABLY and the world said FU AMERICA. And America itself said ENOUGH!! Yeah, real easy to say ROMNEY would have done it better. Sure, why not?? They can tell us they can make 100 angels dance on the head of a pin.
Look at our history. Traditionally it is Democrats who get us involved in wars. That said, the problems this Democrat President will take years to fix.
Translation: Obama's reputation is so far in the toilet as president that he's starting to make G.W. Bush look like a reasonable guy and, of course, extremely competent in comparison. So our leftwingers are enraged (rather than accepting that they collectively shoved a super featherweight into the Oval Office twice) and pushing the pretense that nobody else in the universe could do one iota better. It's called massive self-delusion. Essentially Obama supporters are quintupling down on mindlessly backing someone that they KNOW is a very, very bad president. Partisan political loyalty in preference to caring about the nation itself. Nice!
Yet, in modern times, it is republicans that complain about tax and spend liberals while they themselves engage in spend and finance policies and claim we can lower our tax burden.
Economy Foreign Policy Race relations - - - Updated - - - The Republicans and Democrats are both the problem. You're not making any points with me here.
... Is that what you call 'in real terms'? I guess I'll keep waiting for someone to answer that question, because you refused to. I don't think anyone actually knows what Obama supposedly did wrong. You refer to vague terms and issues, but never get into one single action that he has taken in his official capacity that has actually earned him such ire. It's quite clear that you despise Obama because you think you're supposed to, not because of anything you actually know that he's done.
So nothing but personal attacks? I'll tell you what. Go back through the archives here at PF. You'll get all of the specifics you want by me and many other posters here. Don't be lazy. We've hashed out his shortcomings as they've occurred since his first inauguration. Just because you're new here doesn't mean you can't access what we have posted in the past. Enjoy your reading assignment.
Yes, Hamas may have started the current hostilities but in the end they targeted the Israeli military with 30 Israeli soldiers and only one Israeli civilian dead plus a foreign worker, before Israeli counters offensive. Israel on the other hand picks real or vague (including a clinic) military targets and then annihilates the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of them with high yield bombs with complete disregard for collateral. Hamas was the initial aggressor, but Israeli response is totally disproportionate. Hamas of late seems to terrorize the patrol posts, while Israel terrorizes civilians.
