Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:48 AM Oct 2012

Mittwit wants a more "muscular" America in regards to foreign policy. What would that mean?

And how should the Obama administration respond to Mittwit's foreign policy outline?

I don't think it's too hard to construe. Mitt's aggressive posturing would translate into more wars and covert operations- not just in the middle east but in Latin America as well. His positions regarding Russia and China would lead to a deterioration of relations and would not go unanswered by those countries.

The United States under Romney would fall further into disfavor on the world stage and that would lead to attacks abroad and possibly here.

He wants to tie foreign aid to trade policies, private investments and corporate partnerships. You couldn't possibly give a bigger smooch to big business.

Sure Romney's speech yesterday at VMI was largely posturing, but even if it was short on specifics, it gave us a pretty good roadmap: Mindless aggression and hugely upping military spending lead to a very dangerous place.

Americans are sick of war. Yes, they can be manipulated but it won't be as easy now as it was back in 2001 and 2002. I'd like to see the President's campaign state baldly that Romney's foreign policy is dangerous and would lead to further conflicts.

As bad as Mitt's domestic policy is, his foreign policy matches that abysmal level.

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mittwit wants a more "muscular" America in regards to foreign policy. What would that mean? (Original Post) cali Oct 2012 OP
It means a KO for Iran Kindly Refrain Oct 2012 #1
yep, they can't stop war mongering. 2pooped2pop Oct 2012 #6
we would not have to pay our debt to them if they were the enemy so US warmongers lunasun Oct 2012 #12
they (repiglicans) won't stop until they kill us all. n/t 2pooped2pop Oct 2012 #13
yeah, well, like little boot's family newspeak Oct 2012 #25
Iran would fight back with the US Hawk missiles Republican traitor Ollie North (R) gave them Berlum Oct 2012 #29
" Occupy the Plains of Meggido" - Willard's Foreign Policy Berlum Oct 2012 #2
Occupy Kolob! Kindly Refrain Oct 2012 #4
Protest-ors will be Kolobered Berlum Oct 2012 #7
It means he thinks we're not bullying enough countries around the world. mysuzuki2 Oct 2012 #3
P90X mandatory for State Dept. employees Enrique Oct 2012 #5
Terminator for Secretary of War Donkees Oct 2012 #8
It means Mitt wants to be a war president pinboy3niner Oct 2012 #9
LOOK OUT PUTIN! HERE COMES......... madrchsod Oct 2012 #10
a bunch of macho mouthy rhetoric? like bush. nt seabeyond Oct 2012 #11
You mean the same "mouthy rhetoric" from Bush that got us into two wars in the Middle East... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #20
bring it on.... tough guy. ya. nt seabeyond Oct 2012 #24
Mouthy macho posturing is a tradition among Republican chickenhawks Berlum Oct 2012 #31
Warmongering gollygee Oct 2012 #14
More defense spending. lpbk2713 Oct 2012 #15
nuclear desert Stake Oct 2012 #16
Another $2 Trillion to the DOD. sinkingfeeling Oct 2012 #17
John Bolton as Secretary of State? yellowcanine Oct 2012 #18
He wants to reprise the Bush trifecta? Tax Cuts, War and Massive Debt. yellowcanine Oct 2012 #19
It means strutting around swinging a big stick - haele Oct 2012 #21
He'd then provoke more 9-11's cpwm17 Oct 2012 #22
Unlimited military spending..which has already promised. n/t LeftinOH Oct 2012 #23
See George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld Glitterati Oct 2012 #26
He's channeling Reagan HereSince1628 Oct 2012 #27
It means Romney wants this country to be ready to invade any country at will, no_hypocrisy Oct 2012 #28
Obama has got to paint him as the next coming of the Chimp, which he is. aint_no_life_nowhere Oct 2012 #30
 

2pooped2pop

(5,420 posts)
6. yep, they can't stop war mongering.
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:58 AM
Oct 2012

It makes them rich. But China would kick our ass. Remember the guy involved with rigging the voting machines to flip? Clint Curtis, I think. He was talking something about the parts to our arms that direct it, were being sent from China. You think they didn't fuck with them? You think they would send us parts that would allow us to attack them? I think those smart bombs and such would be turned around and sent back here if we attacked China.

I think he was told to shut up about it.

lunasun

(21,646 posts)
12. we would not have to pay our debt to them if they were the enemy so US warmongers
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:28 AM
Oct 2012

have a lot "invested" in making China the enemy
Iran will be 1st

newspeak

(4,847 posts)
25. yeah, well, like little boot's family
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:25 AM
Oct 2012

how much vested interest does mittens have keeping the war machine going? his tough talk shows his true chickenhawk values. maybe he can get one of his sons to finally enlist, "put his money where his mouth is", instead of asking our families to sacrifice in lives and tax paying to provide him and his plutocrat, greedy friends even more mega bucks.

Notice how these wars have actually drained the country, thus, making the claim the war strengthens the economy bogus. these wars just strengthen the wallets of WS traders, global corporations and certain congresscritters who invested in destruction. It drains most americans, while further eroding our infrastructure. I tell you, we're looking more and more like the roman plebes, and the plutocrats are looking more like roman aristocrats more interested in their own power.

Of course, if we did fall, we have plenty of looney tunes waiting to preach to the faithful. I'd say, we'd be looking at another dark ages.

Berlum

(7,044 posts)
29. Iran would fight back with the US Hawk missiles Republican traitor Ollie North (R) gave them
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:10 PM
Oct 2012

Why did the Republicans give the "evil empire" of Iran missiles to shoot at our American sons and daughters in uniform?

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm

mysuzuki2

(3,521 posts)
3. It means he thinks we're not bullying enough countries around the world.
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:52 AM
Oct 2012

Seems in character for Mitt.

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)
20. You mean the same "mouthy rhetoric" from Bush that got us into two wars in the Middle East...
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:49 AM
Oct 2012

...and eventually led to our economic collapse?

Yeah...I guess that's it.

Berlum

(7,044 posts)
31. Mouthy macho posturing is a tradition among Republican chickenhawks
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 07:51 PM
Oct 2012

As they regularly demonstrate, before slinking back into their craven1% hidey holes and dodging their responsibilities as citizens to the USA.

lpbk2713

(42,759 posts)
15. More defense spending.
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:34 AM
Oct 2012



As if DoD doesn't already take the biggest bite out of the budget.
Mittens longs for the good ol' days when the MIC had a robust relationship.


haele

(12,659 posts)
21. It means strutting around swinging a big stick -
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:51 AM
Oct 2012

Lots of flags, uniforms and aircraft carriers.

Sending in the Marines at the slightest provocation against "our friend's" enemies - or threatening to.

Being used by "our friends" and "our American Business Intrests" to beat up their political enemies.

Pissing off lots of other people who would otherwise leave us alone to pursue their own lives.

Did I mention lots of strutting around, looking military, and talking big again?

This isn't "speaking softly but carrying a big stick" - this is stumbling down the street on a foriegn policy power trip yelling "you lookin' at me?" to anyone the policy makers don't like or want to bully and beat down.

Haele

 

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)
22. He'd then provoke more 9-11's
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:57 AM
Oct 2012

which would give the war mongers more excuses to start more wars. Americans will be the world's most hated people.

These right-winged war-mongers are the world's most dangerous people.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
27. He's channeling Reagan
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:41 AM
Oct 2012

But there's a chance that he could mean putting all diplomats on the embassy softball teams on steroids.

no_hypocrisy

(46,117 posts)
28. It means Romney wants this country to be ready to invade any country at will,
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 12:03 PM
Oct 2012

take its resources, and send warnings to any country or group that wants to challenge our superiority.

Why can't we be like Italy or Switzerland and just exist????

aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)
30. Obama has got to paint him as the next coming of the Chimp, which he is.
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:35 PM
Oct 2012

Romney's entire campaign in two words: chimponomics and PNAC.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Mittwit wants a more &quo...