General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMittwit 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.
Kindly Refrain
(423 posts)and then start using China as a punching bag.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)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)have a lot "invested" in making China the enemy
Iran will be 1st
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)newspeak
(4,847 posts)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)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
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Kindly Refrain
(423 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)
mysuzuki2
(3,521 posts)Seems in character for Mitt.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)Donkees
(31,413 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Just what we need.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...and eventually led to our economic collapse?
Yeah...I guess that's it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)As they regularly demonstrate, before slinking back into their craven1% hidey holes and dodging their responsibilities as citizens to the USA.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)GWB II
lpbk2713
(42,759 posts)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.
Stake
(200 posts)that means nuclear desert at near future
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)That is my hunch.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)haele
(12,659 posts)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)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.
LeftinOH
(5,354 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)THAT'S exactly what it means.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)But there's a chance that he could mean putting all diplomats on the embassy softball teams on steroids.
no_hypocrisy
(46,117 posts)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)Romney's entire campaign in two words: chimponomics and PNAC.