Obama vs Romney 3: The Rubber Match in Boca Raton-Foreign Policy Debate

[Bang]

"Why, that sure was an interesting answer,, i think I'll change my vote.", said no one in America.

At this point, I believe anone who is as yet undecided is either

A lying, or

B/ a drooling idiot.

But mostly, I think they're

A/ lying.

And if by off chance that my cynical viewpoint is incorrect in the case of a few (and I mean FEW) indiviuals, I would suggest nothing they will hear from here on out is going to help them make up their mind. Whatever they're waiting for ain't coming.

Flip a coin.

~Bang

[SkinsHokieFan]

SHF, you'll need better examples to convince me.

If we just cut it down from the end of WW2 its astonishing the state of war we have been in.

Korea. Vietnam. All the "military actions" in the 80s. Iraq twice.

Has there been any superpower in the history of the world that can a) conduct itself like this and sustain it

That is the most important thing to consider. Can we maintain this war stance and still be economically viable?

[KCClybun]

"Why, that sure was an interesting answer,, i think I'll change my vote.", said no one in America.

I think at this point the concept of the undecided voter is just that; a concept. Anyone who doesn't have their mind made up at this point probably isn't going to vote, and the mythic "undecided voter" is something to talk about on TV for the next couple weeks.

[Redskins Diehard]

"Why, that sure was an interesting answer,, i think I'll change my vote.", said no one in America.

At this point, I believe anone who is as yet undecided is either

A lying, or

B/ a drooling idiot.

But mostly, I think they're

A/ lying.

And if by off chance that my cynical viewpoint is incorrect in the case of a few (and I mean FEW) indiviuals, I would suggest nothing they will hear from here on out is going to help them make up their mind. Whatever they're waiting for ain't coming.

Flip a coin.

~Bang

I have a slightly different take. I think what happens from here out is that people decide that they will actually go out an vote to a) help the guy that they agree with most win, or make sure the other guy doesn't win. Perhaps more of a voter turnout proposition at this point.

---------- Post added October-22nd-2012 at 02:35 PM ----------

Duh, Congress never declared a war so we aren't at war.

The US has been at war, one way or another for 214 years since the American revolution

Its in our DNA to go overseas and kill people. This President has made it far easier to do so without considering the costs to America because we now have 28 year olds in Neveda launching missles from drones flying over the middle east

Which introduces an interesting consideration as to what is considered a legitimate target in this new arrangement.

[Bang]

I have a slightly different take. I think what happens from here out is that people decide that they will actually go out an vote to a) help the guy that they agree with most win, or make sure the other guy doesn't win. Perhaps more of a voter turnout proposition at this point.

.

I think this is what it's been almost all along.

The third parties are trying to paint these guys as equals, but they're really not.

I think they're right when it is said that this is a fundamentally ideological decision for the people.. you either believe this way, or that way.

But the race is mostly about who can convince the most of their own supporters to get out there and cast a ballot.

~Bang

[DjTj]

Has there been any superpower in the history of the world that can a) conduct itself like this and sustain it

That is the most important thing to consider. Can we maintain this war stance and still be economically viable?

I think that every superpower in the history of the world has conducted itself like this. And every superpower eventually faded. Whether it's the Romans, the Mongols, the Spanish, the British, or the Americans, hegemony requires a certain amount of constant military action. And eventually the empire will have to cut back and the balance of power will shift.

What I want to know is what Romney turn-of-phrase will turn into an internet meme at this debate. Will Big Bird go to China? Will there be CIA briefings in binders? Will someone forget Poland? The internet has definitely made these Presidential debates a lot more fun.

[renaissance]

What I want to know is what Romney turn-of-phrase will turn into an internet meme at this debate. Will Big Bird go to China? Will there be CIA briefings in binders? Will someone forget Poland? The internet has definitely made these Presidential debates a lot more fun.

I was disappointed George Bush's "Want some wood?" line didn't take off. Somehow Poland was deemed funnier.

[SnyderShrugged]

[quote name=Bang;9225268

The third parties are trying to paint these guys as equals' date=' but they're really not.

~Bang[/quote]

In terms of fundamental foreign policy, they are pretty much equal. It doesnt take a third party to notice that.

[nonniey]

I wonder if people in safe states such as California or Alabama even know there's an election soon.

In Arizona, I've seen a grand total of two ads for President but lots of of ads of Senate and the House, so it is not like were are getting off totally scot free.

[Larry]

Because I exist in reality, and you're actively defining any and every military action any President has ever authorized a war, whether it actually is one or not.

Hey, when the guy you're supporting wants to dismantle our nation's ability to do anything military, overseas, then providing logistical support to some Libyan rebels, killing Ossama bin Laden, and invading Iraq look kind of similar.

[SnyderShrugged]

Hey, when the guy you're supporting wants to dismantle our nation's ability to do anything military, overseas, then providing logistical support to some Libyan rebels, killing Ossama bin Laden, and invading Iraq look kind of similar.

who am I supporting wants to "dismantle our nations ability to do anything military"?

Links please.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the breakdown in the fundamental differences in foreign policy too while you are at it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

It's the difference between sending armed troops into coordinated military efforts and actively declaring war on countries like Syria and Iran to try and force democracy down their throats and "speed the process" and further destablize the region and using drones to kill specific targets who are involved in actions detrimental to the security of the United States while only occasionally dipping our toes in the affairs of others and knowing when to back the hell off and let countries do it themselves.

Which candidate has proposed invading Iran and Syria?

Why would we ever invade any place again? We have such a great tool with drones which this administration has established.

[KCClybun]

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the breakdown in the fundamental differences in foreign policy too while you are at it.

It's the difference between sending armed troops into coordinated military efforts and actively declaring war on countries like Syria and Iran to try and force democracy down their throats and "speed the process" and further destablize the region and using drones to kill specific targets who are involved in actions detrimental to the security of the United States while only occasionally dipping our toes in the affairs of others and knowing when to back the hell off and let countries do it themselves.

[SkinsHokieFan]

It's the difference between sending armed troops into coordinated military efforts and actively declaring war on countries like Syria and Iran to try and force democracy down their throats and "speed the process" and further destablize the region and using drones to kill specific targets who are involved in actions detrimental to the security of the United States while only occasionally dipping our toes in the affairs of others and knowing when to back the hell off and let countries do it themselves.

Which candidate has proposed invading Iran and Syria?

Why would we ever invade any place again? We have such a great tool with drones which this administration has established.

[Larry]

who am I supporting wants to "dismantle our nations ability to do anything military"?

Links please.

You really want me to prove that you at least were a big fan of Ron Paul's "let's close down almost every overseas military base we have" plan?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the breakdown in the fundamental differences in foreign policy too while you are at it.

Between Obama and W? Or Obama and whatever Mitt kind of says he might do?

[Larry]

Which candidate has proposed invading Iran and Syria?

They don't come out and say it.

But IMO, every single one who attacks Obama for not forcing Iran to shut down their nuke program is at least really strongly hinting at it.

[SnyderShrugged]

You really want me to prove that you at least were a big fan of Ron Paul's "let's close down almost every overseas military base we have" plan?

Between Obama and W? Or Obama and whatever Mitt kind of says he might do?

No, I'd like you to prove that Ron Paul advocated "dismantle our nations ability to do anything military" as you stated specifically. You may not like the plans he had, in fact you may hate them completely, but you cant be free to just make up any old thing you like and get away with it either.

as to the second question, between Mitts and Obama's stated foreign policy positions (using both statements and historical actions in the case of Obama.)

[SkinsHokieFan]

You really want me to prove that you at least were a big fan of Ron Paul's "let's close down almost every overseas military base we have" plan?

I am.

Do we really need this many bases around Iran? Imagine China with this many in Canada and Mexico

[Wrong Direction]

That is the most important thing to consider. Can we maintain this [iNSERT TOPIC] and still be economically viable?

I made a slight change. You ask a good question, but war stance is only one of the possible economy-killing policies this country faces. I think the people and our leaders have soured on war right now, at least they've soured on war Bush-style.

To me (and most, I guess), the two biggest albatrosses around this country's neck are health care and defense, with social security following and other welfare fourth. However, the first two are the most insidious because the lobbies for those industries are massive and in nearly every congressional district.

[SkinsHokieFan]

They don't come out and say it.

But IMO, every single one who attacks Obama for not forcing Iran to shut down their nuke program is at least really strongly hinting at it.

Of launching a ground invasion of Iran?

That is 100 percent ridiculous.

The difference in Israel/Iran policy is where is the red line and when do we have our boys in Neveda launch the drones.

[KCClybun]

They don't come out and say it.

But IMO, every single one who attacks Obama for not forcing Iran to shut down their nuke program is at least really strongly hinting at it.

Add to the that the fact that basically all of Mitt Romney's foreign policy advisers have, at one point or another, advocated going to war with Iran.

[SnyderShrugged]

It's the difference between sending armed troops into coordinated military efforts and actively declaring war on countries like Syria and Iran to try and force democracy down their throats and "speed the process" and further destablize the region and using drones to kill specific targets who are involved in actions detrimental to the security of the United States while only occasionally dipping our toes in the affairs of others and knowing when to back the hell off and let countries do it themselves.

so its the tools used (including soldiers) that defines war? Thats a new one to me. How did you come up with it?

Do you really imagine that it matters a great deal to a family if they lose someone to a drone bomb or a mortar shell launched from Ground troops?

[KCClybun]

The difference in Israel/Iran policy is where is the red line and when do we have our boys in Neveda launch the drones.

Mitt Romney's been so goddamn vague on his foreign policy agenda (despite being surrounded with Bush administration neo-cons) that most of his positions have basically taken the form of "take what the Obama administration is already doing and re-word it slightly to make it look like Obama's weak on foreign policy."

If there is trouble separating Romney from Obama, it's in the regard that Romney (as he is wont to do) keeps shifting his position, and then adopting whatever position the President has. I don't thin the means the two men have the same foreign policy agenda; I think it shows Romney has no ****ing clue about how to deal with foreign policy and will allow the people around him and pro-war people like John McCain in the Congress shape his foreign policy agenda.

Hence, more war. And yes, I do think that will ultimately means not just the use of drones, but the use of troops as well.

---------- Post added October-22nd-2012 at 03:57 PM ----------

Do you really imagine that it matters a great deal to a family if they lose someone to a drone bomb or a mortar shell launched from Ground troops?

No, I don't.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Mitt Romney's been so goddamn vague on his foreign policy agenda (despite being surrounded with Bush administration neo-cons) that most of his positions have basically taken the form of "take what the Obama administration is already doing and re-word it slightly to make it look like Obama's weak on foreign policy."

.

I don't think a challenger can ever be "specific" on FP due to the fact he simply does not get the same info as the current President and well things change.

Quick What did President Obama say about Libya and Egypt in 2007?

And where in the hell are we going to send 500k troops from and do another troop build up to invade Iran? We are moving everyone out by 2014. The Romney campaign has not said it will keep troops there PLUS add 450k more troops.

A ground invasion would take a full year, minimum, to prepare.

Essentially this: You have 1 guy who doesn't want to show he agrees with the FP of the other guy, so he talks about apology tours and nonsense of that sort, which is how Joe Biden was able to lap Paul Ryan 2 weeks ago.

The other guy has established the precedent that we can launch drone attacks on anybody, including Americans, worldwide.

[Redskins Diehard]

So your definition of "war" is "any military action we've taken that I personally disagree with".

Good. At least we know the parameters of the debate.

Actually according to the other thread on this page Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen really aren't being "fought" with the military. So you may have a point here and "war monger" may not be the best terminology. I am not sure what you call a president that uses the intelligence community to use lethal force against people on his secret list.