logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> What's Romney's foreign policy , And why won't he give interviews?
Dingo
post Nov 3 2012, 02:06 PM
Post #1


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



I haven't been able to discern Romney's foreign policy or that he is even interested in the subject. However this interview suggests something that might be called a foreign policy which seems to mainly focus around Israel, who he often references in sycophantic terms. Apparently foreign policy at some point is going to be turned over to Jesus as he comes down in Israel and Missouri and then reigns for a 1000 years. This 2008 video interview is fascinating on a lot of levels, among other things the intense paranoia the guy exhibits. It helps explain why he has ceased giving interviews, not even to Fox. Additionally he seems to have some attachment to conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, Glen Beck's guru.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/watch-mitt-...s-jerusalem-and

Questions for discussion.

Please lay out your view of what Romney's foreign policy is if any.

What kind of background does he have that would prepare him as a foreign policy president?

What impact do you think his Mormon training would have on his approach to the world?

Why do you think he won't give interviews?

Edit. Oops, I didn't complete the title. The last word should of course be "interviews." I'd appreciate a correction.

This post has been edited by Dingo: Nov 3 2012, 02:15 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 27)
Hobbes
post Nov 6 2012, 12:04 AM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,328
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



All reasons why I think this is mainly a political talking point, and not something he would actually try to do...all for pragmatic reasons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 6 2012, 12:42 AM
Post #22


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 5 2012, 07:04 PM) *
All reasons why I think this is mainly a political talking point, and not something he would actually try to do...all for pragmatic reasons.


I don't view making empty threats/promises to incite a world leader in international court as a particularly pragmatic exercise.

The same goes for his position on Israel. There goes any plausible deniability on our part if Israel launches an attack on Iran. When Iraq launched attacks against Israel during the first Gulf war Bush senior asked them not to retaliate because he knew the moment they did it would increase Saddam's support tenfold. When our Marines were bombed in barracks in Lebanon Reagan took our troops out (rather than retaliating) because he knew absolutely that retaliation on our part would be viewed as siding with Israel, and we went in attempting to serve as a neutral party. Both were pragmatic approaches. The public statement "we have Israel's back militarily" should never ever be made. It might even be the least pragmatic statement that could be made in foreign policy. We have no security obligations to Israel. There is nothing to be gained, lives are on the line, and with widespread degree of weapons proliferation and decrease in resources (military less than half the size it was during the eighties) we arguably have more to lose than ever before.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 6 2012, 12:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 6 2012, 03:11 AM
Post #23


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,328
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 5 2012, 07:42 PM) *
I don't view making empty threats/promises to incite a world leader in international court as a particularly pragmatic exercise.


Sure it is...for the same reason it works for Ahmedinejad: domestic political support.

QUOTE
The same goes for his position on Israel. There goes any plausible deniability on our part if Israel launches an attack on Iran. When Iraq launched attacks against Israel during the first Gulf war Bush senior asked them not to retaliate because he knew the moment they did it would increase Saddam's support tenfold. When our Marines were bombed in barracks in Lebanon Reagan took our troops out (rather than retaliating) because he knew absolutely that retaliation on our part would be viewed as siding with Israel, and we went in attempting to serve as a neutral party. Both were pragmatic approaches. The public statement "we have Israel's back militarily" should never ever be made. It might even be the least pragmatic statement that could be made in foreign policy. We have no security obligations to Israel. There is nothing to be gained, lives are on the line, and with widespread degree of weapons proliferation and decrease in resources (military less than half the size it was during the eighties) we arguably have more to lose than ever before.


We have had Israel's back militarily for quite some time, and have made that well known. Romney reiterating the status quo doesn't change anything. Nor does it imply involvement in any attack Israel makes, as it is a purely defensive statement, only applying if Israel is attacked.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 6 2012, 03:13 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 6 2012, 03:25 AM
Post #24


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 5 2012, 10:11 PM) *
We have had Israel's back militarily for quite some time, and have made that well known. Romney reiterating the status quo doesn't change anything. Nor does it imply involvement in any attack Israel makes, as it is a purely defensive statement, only applying if Israel is attacked.


The context of the quote was actually made in specific regard to an Israeli strike on Iran around the timeframe of next spring or summer. If you believe we've had Israel's back militarily for quite some time please point to one single instance when we've sent troops in to defend them from an attack. They've been attacked many times so if we've had their back this should be easy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 6 2012, 03:47 PM
Post #25


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,328
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Obama said pretty much the exact same thing:

QUOTE
During his final debate between with Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, the President stated, “If Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel,” and that “all options are on the table.”


Which is why I am not that worked up about what Romney said. He does seem more inclined to have a stronger relationship with Israel than Obama has had. Again, it gets back to philosophy. Obama, to me, seems to have a mindset that everyone in the world can be our friend. While I think we had been too much the other way, this is swinging the pendulum too far. We need to understand that some countries are better friends than others (like Israel), and that some countries are our enemies (Rissia seems to want to fall in that camp). you treat each accordingly. Romney seems like he would do that.

They are doing the same thing (talking tough for internal politcal reasons) in Israel too.

QUOTE
So, why have Israel’s leaders escalated their rhetoric in recent weeks to a fever pitch? Because they, and their allies “ including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its spinoff, the Washington Institution for Near East Policy (WINEP), and other, likeminded groups and think tanks “ believe that even an outlandish set of threats against Iran can accomplish important objectives for Netanyahu.


I agree with their analysis that Israel won't attack Iran. First, I haven't heard any analysts say that it would be effective. Second, Israel doesn't have the delivery capability to be true threat (same as N. Korea, btw). Finally, Iran would suffer severe consequences if it did launch at attack on Israel. So, the risk isn't worth the limited reward. Both sides (all three, even) will ratchet up their rhetoric to curry domestic favor. That's all it is. But, of the three, the side with by far the strongest rhetoric is Iran. Neither the U.S. nor Israel talks openly of eradicating them from the face of the earth, while they (well, Ahmedinejad) do.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 6 2012, 04:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 6 2012, 05:15 PM
Post #26


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 6 2012, 10:47 AM) *
Obama said pretty much the exact same thing:

QUOTE
During his final debate between with Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, the President stated, “If Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel,” and that “all options are on the table.”


Which is why I am not that worked up about what Romney said.


I don't agree that the above correlates to what Romney said. The above is a diplomatic statement. Everything is on the table (not saying what we will do), and we will back an attacked nation (not saying how exactly). Romney outright said we'll back them militarily if they attack, and he's going to indict the Iranian president.

QUOTE
He does seem more inclined to have a stronger relationship with Israel than Obama has had. Again, it gets back to philosophy. Obama, to me, seems to have a mindset that everyone in the world can be our friend.
I don't think so. Osama bin Laden died under his leadership. Think about how much the world has changed, and things are so much better after the deaths of bin Laden, Qaddafi, and Saddam. Or maybe not....isn't that interesting?

QUOTE
While I think we had been too much the other way, this is swinging the pendulum too far. We need to understand that some countries are better friends than others (like Israel), and that some countries are our enemies (Russia seems to want to fall in that camp). you treat each accordingly. Romney seems like he would do that.

They are doing the same thing (talking tough for internal politcal reasons) in Israel too.

QUOTE
So, why have Israel’s leaders escalated their rhetoric in recent weeks to a fever pitch? Because they, and their allies “ including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its spinoff, the Washington Institution for Near East Policy (WINEP), and other, likeminded groups and think tanks “ believe that even an outlandish set of threats against Iran can accomplish important objectives for Netanyahu.


I agree with their analysis that Israel won't attack Iran. First, I haven't heard any analysts say that it would be effective. Second, Israel doesn't have the delivery capability to be true threat (same as N. Korea, btw). Finally, Iran would suffer severe consequences if it did launch at attack on Israel. So, the risk isn't worth the limited reward. Both sides (all three, even) will ratchet up their rhetoric to curry domestic favor. That's all it is. But, of the three, the side with by far the strongest rhetoric is Iran. Neither the U.S. nor Israel talks openly of eradicating them from the face of the earth, while they (well, Ahmedinejad) do.


True about the last bit. I don't think Israel will attack Iran either (or vice versa, for the reasons you've stated). I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about making imprudent decisions in the short term based on emotion rather than long-term sound judgment. We have Romney's statements, which you've dismissed as meaningless talking points, used (for the same reason they work for Ahmedinejad, I'll let the irony of that hang in the air) for domestic political support. So we have his background to go by, rather than what he says, which should be dismissed (?). I've always believed you can tell the merit of a leader (and person for that matter) by the way they treat others. So...what percentage of Romney's business ventures led to long-term gain for the majority of people who worked for them? WWJS (What Would the Janitor Say?).

Edited to add: Ultimately, by this time tomorrow we will know who won and this thread will be kind of pointless. If Romney wins, I definitely hope you're right about everything you've stated. Time will tell...

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 6 2012, 07:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 6 2012, 08:01 PM
Post #27


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,328
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 6 2012, 12:15 PM) *
I don't agree that the above correlates to what Romney said. The above is a diplomatic statement. Everything is on the table (not saying what we will do), and we will back an attacked nation (not saying how exactly). Romney outright said we'll back them militarily if they attack, and he's going to indict the Iranian president.


The Obama administration itself disagrees...they say that Obama's statement does indeed imply military assistance. So, again, he is saying the same thing. If you are worried about what Romney said, you should be equally concerned about what Obama said.

QUOTE
QUOTE
He does seem more inclined to have a stronger relationship with Israel than Obama has had. Again, it gets back to philosophy. Obama, to me, seems to have a mindset that everyone in the world can be our friend.
I don't think so.


Based on what?
QUOTE
Osama bin Laden died under his leadership.


Yes, he did a good job of continuing the policies and practices that Bush had put in place regarding OBL, and it is rather amazing how now everyone on the left is fine with them, when before they were completely wrong. Politics is the wonderful art of making hypocrisy correct.


QUOTE
I'm worried about making imprudent decisions in the short term based on emotion rather than long-term sound judgment.


Then you must favor Romney, because he has made data driven, analytical decisions his entire life. Obama? He actually hasn't seem to have made many decisions at all, leaving such mundane policy work up to those in Congress.

QUOTE
We have Romney's statements, which you've dismissed as meaningless talking points, used (for the same reason they work for Ahmedinejad, I'll let the irony of that hang in the air) for domestic political support.


Again, Obama has said the same thing...so if you are worried about the one, you are worried about the other.

QUOTE
So we have his background to go by, rather than what he says, which should be dismissed (?). I've always believed you can tell the merit of a leader (and person for that matter) by the way they treat others.


Did you watch the CNN special on Romney? If so, I suggest you do, it was very good, and addresses this point quite a bit.

QUOTE
So...what percentage of Romney's business ventures led to long-term gain for the majority of people who worked for them? WWJS (What Would the Janitor Say?).


Most of them...and what does this have to do with foreign policy? For that matater, what percentages of Obama's business ventures led to long term gain for the majority of people who worked for them? That would be none, as he had (and still has) no business experience.

What people constantly forget whenever businesses make tough decisions to stay competetive is that a business that goes out of business employs no one. If someone else makes your widget cheaper than you, you will go out of business. Cost cutting isn't some evil phenomenon...it is what any successful business tries to do all the time. Which is worse, laying off 1,000 people, or going out of business and laying off 10,000? Plus, businesses aren't in the business of employing people, they are in the business of making profits for their shareholders. As such, the proper question to ask is "What percentage of Romney's business ventures made money?" Almost all of them. Hence, he was very successful. Is being consistently unsuccessful your criteria for becoming President? If so...why?

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 6 2012, 08:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 6 2012, 09:01 PM
Post #28


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 6 2012, 03:01 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 6 2012, 12:15 PM) *

...
So...what percentage of Romney's business ventures led to long-term gain for the majority of people who worked for them? WWJS (What Would the Janitor Say?).

Most of them ...
...

Yup.

And let's not forget all the other people, as well as organizations and institutions (all of which, no doubt, employ janitors) who've benefited from Bain's ventures (bolding mine):
QUOTE
...
... Bains private-equity executives have enriched dozens of organizations and millions of individuals in the Democratic base including some who scream most loudly for President Obamas re-election.

Government-worker pension funds are the chief beneficiaries of Bains economic stewardship. New York-based Preqin uses public documents, news accounts and Freedom of Information requests to track private-equity holdings. Since 2000, Preqin reports, the following funds have entrusted some $1.56 billion to Bain:
...
Leading universities have also profited from Bains expertise. According to Infrastructure Investor, Bain Capital Ventures Fund I (launched in 2001) managed wealth for endowments and foundations such as Columbia, Princeton and Yale universities.

According to BuyOuts magazine and S&P Capital IQ, Bains other college clients have included Cornell, Emory, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame and the University of Pittsburgh. Preqin reports that the following schools have placed at least $424.6 million with Bain Capital between 1998 and 2008:
...
Major, center-left foundations and cultural establishments also have seen their prospects brighten, thanks to Bain Capital. According to the aforementioned sources, such Bain clients have included the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Ford Foundation, the Heinz Endowments and the Oprah Winfrey Foundation.
...
Since 1988, Duran says, private-equity companies like Bain have outperformed every other asset class to which CalSTRS [California State Teachers Retirement System] has allocated the cash of its 856,360 largely unionized members.
...

Link: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...6kZnc8.facebook

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: October 18th, 2018 - 05:39 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.