Mitt Romney Just Hammered Obama On Libya In A Big, Wide-Ranging Foreign Policy Speech

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pork_Roll
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kimmielittle said:
IMO There are many terrorists who do not want peace - they would have made reasonable demands, by now. These people want / promote death
Click to expand...
Jordan is the second most stable government in the middle east IMHO. been there…loved it.
 
Yerusalyim said:
The pope is a good man…but he’s done nothing to bring peace to the middle east. The pope’s beliefs on the middle east our his opinions which should be given due consideration by catholics…but they are NOT matters of faith.

I take issue with innocent civilians being slaughtered by Asad’s military. They have a right to self defense. The international community has done NOTHING to help. Our one hope is that if we help the rebels maybe they won’t be so anti-American.
Click to expand...
The rebels are comprised of al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States.

Providing support to enemies in time of war is a violation of the NDAA.
 
mlz said:
Children in the wombs of their mothers are THE most innocent being murdered!!

Mlz
Click to expand...
Exactly, let alone we meddled in Libya… and Egypt in fact, with Egypt, it might be that Christians are more persecuted with the Muslim Brotherhood in power.
 
One time I heard an “Expert” speak of Assad’s father and the same kind of stuff happened under him, neighborhoods would get heavily shelled and there would be big casualties.

Syria too, has probably caused trouble in Lebanon and against Christians. We need to bear all of this in mind.
 
mlz said:
Children in the wombs of their mothers are THE most innocent being murdered!!

Mlz
Click to expand...
So let’s just ignore everything else and only focus on that? I’m with you, abortion is important, but I can’t vote for a guy who has all of these other horrible positions.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Are you talking about the king of Jordan? That King Abdullah? He isn’t mentioned in the list you cited, and I would argue that while he certainly is a monarch and acts like one, he is far from being a monster. Jordan has had peace under him and fairly substantial prosperity for a non-petroleum Arab state. Jordanians are the best educated people in the Middle East except for Israelis, and are in demand all over the Middle East because of it.
Click to expand...
I mentioned far more people than just him. Want to comment on that?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Recall that Obama warred against Libya when it posed no threat to the U.S. or to any other country. He had no congressional approval. He just did it because he wanted to do it. So let’s not jump to conclusions about Romney being the “warmonger” of the two.
Click to expand...
I never supported this by Obama, and Romney wants tougher sanctions against Iran.
One could make arguments that both Iraq and Af/Pak were just wars, though I think the argument for Af/Pak is a lot weaker than it was for Iraq, because the chances of success in Af/Pak (one of the criteria) were always negligible. We actually did succeed in Iraq, but threw it away.
Click to expand...
Neither one was just because of the amount of civilian death that was caused. We were never attacked by Iraq.
And “too weak” as regards Iran is relative. It would have cost Obama nothing to have at least denounced the regime’s crushing dissent and called for sanctions for that alone. But he wouldn’t even do that. Saying that’s “weak” is just telling the truth. It doesn’t mean Romney is going to land marines in Iran.
Click to expand...
So sanctions that are starving innocent people are too weak?
 
colmywaykurtz said:
No, I’m saying we should have left him in there and minded our own dang business.

And remember the healthcare system Iraq had during his tenure? It was the most advanced in the Middle East, outside of Israel’s. Now that’s gone.

The governor of Anbar said in an interview Feb 16, 2009, with General Gary W. Montgomery, Lieutenant Colonel Bradley E. Weisz, Chief Warrant Officer-4 Timothy S. McWilliams (marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Documents/historical/Al-AnbarAwakeningVolII.pdf) that:

“After the fall of the [Saddam Hussein] regime, there was a big vacuum government-wise…There was also administrative or governmental breakdown. One of the biggest breakdowns was the open borders that we had with other countries, which gave access to people to come into Iraq…We felt, as soon as that happened, that these people were not actually resisting the presence of the Americans inside the country, but they came to politicize their own agendas on the people.”

We stabbed Iraq in the back by going there in the first place. And Obama ran on the promise of getting us out, and 53 percent of the electorate voted for him. Americans gave him a mandate, and that just sticks in a lot of people’s craws.

And the Afghanistan war WAS the good war. Bush did not err by going in there. He erred by not giving it the troops and the effort it needed, thanks to Rumsfeld. A half million men should have been sent in and kept there for 5-8 years, which would have enhanced security all over the country (including the borders) and broken the opium-based economy, which would have defunded all the independent warlord-types. We should also have set up a national banking system, which would have eliminated the number one reason for desertion and AWOL in the Afghan army and police systems (not being able to get money to one’s family), and the armed forces could have thereby accumulated expertise, motivation and a secularized, non-sectarian outlook; it would have become a force for national unity as troops from diverse areas and persuasions got used to one another, then rotated out into civilian life. (Descent Into Chaos, by Ahmed Rashid, is a good guide to this)

Colin Powell would probably have handled it this way, had he been given the Sec of Def position. His handling of Desert Storm strongly hints at this.

By the time Obama came in, the chance had gone by. His own attempt at a “surge” there was too little, too late, and for that I DO castigate him. A waste of time, money, and lives.
Click to expand...
Fine. You’ll go on record as wanting Saddam in power so he could murder another million people. I get it.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Neither one was just because of the amount of civilian death that was caused. We were never attacked by Iraq.
Click to expand...
We weren’t? Part of the truce agreement was the “no fly zones”. Saddam shot at our planes and those of the Brits, acts of war in any other context.

And the Just War doctrine does not require that the nation going to war has to be the nation affected directly by the evils of the enemy. Wasn’t a million killed by Saddam enough? Wasn’t his use of WMD enough? Wasn’t his starting two wars, including a world war enough?

My goodness, if not a million dead, use of WMD, starting two wars including a world war, then what would it take?
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
I mentioned far more people than just him. Want to comment on that?
Click to expand...
I asked the question. You have not responded.

But while we’re at it, do you really think it better that the Muslim Brotherhood rule Egypt than Mubarak? Do you think it’s better that Al Quaeda rule Libya than Quadaffi?

It’s not good enough to just say “oh, that guy’s a dictator” or “that guy is oppressive”. You have to consider what the alternatives are. Would you prefer another North Korea in the Middle East (in addition to iran, of course)? I’ll comment on the others when you tell me who you would have replaced those dictators with and what your replacement would, predictably, have done, and tell me how they would have been better than the home-grown dictators like Mugabe.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I asked the question. You have not responded.

But while we’re at it, do you really think it better that the Muslim Brotherhood rule Egypt than Mubarak? Do you think it’s better that Al Quaeda rule Libya than Quadaffi?

It’s not good enough to just say “oh, that guy’s a dictator” or “that guy is oppressive”. You have to consider what the alternatives are. Would you prefer another North Korea in the Middle East (in addition to iran, of course)? I’ll comment on the others when you tell me who you would have replaced those dictators with and what your replacement would, predictably, have done, and tell me how they would have been better than the home-grown dictators like Mugabe.
Click to expand...
Do you get the feeling we have been transported back to 2004?
 
mlz said:
Children in the wombs of their mothers are THE most innocent being murdered!!

Mlz
Click to expand...
How is murdering innocent children in time of war anymore evil than murdering innocent children in the womb?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Fine. You’ll go on record as wanting Saddam in power so he could murder another million people. I get it.
Click to expand...
You don’t have the moral high ground here, it’s much more clouded than you make it out to be. We have about 5000 dead US troops, 100,000 dead Iraqis, 1,000,000 Iraqis displaced, and Sharia Law imposed on the nation. You tell me which situation is better.
 
Ridgerunner said:
We weren’t? Part of the truce agreement was the “no fly zones”. Saddam shot at our planes and those of the Brits, acts of war in any other context.

And the Just War doctrine does not require that the nation going to war has to be the nation affected directly by the evils of the enemy. Wasn’t a million killed by Saddam enough? Wasn’t his use of WMD enough? Wasn’t his starting two wars, including a world war enough?

My goodness, if not a million dead, use of WMD, starting two wars including a world war, then what would it take?
Click to expand...
Can you justify the death of 100,000 Iraqis with Just War doctrine? Does it justify the indiscriminate bombing of Baghdad and other cities?

If you wanted to take out Saddam, fine, he was a bad guy, I can understand it. However, that does not give you the right to attack innocent civilians. Furthermore, what do you do after that? There is no clear good option in that scenario.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I asked the question. You have not responded.

But while we’re at it, do you really think it better that the Muslim Brotherhood rule Egypt than Mubarak? Do you think it’s better that Al Quaeda rule Libya than Quadaffi?

It’s not good enough to just say “oh, that guy’s a dictator” or “that guy is oppressive”. You have to consider what the alternatives are. Would you prefer another North Korea in the Middle East (in addition to iran, of course)? I’ll comment on the others when you tell me who you would have replaced those dictators with and what your replacement would, predictably, have done, and tell me how they would have been better than the home-grown dictators like Mugabe.
Click to expand...
The point is that anti-US sentiment is caused by our meddling in the affairs of foreign countries. By meddling less, we have less terrorism.

Don’t you find it interesting that Switzerland is never attacked?
lewrockwell.com/walker/walker32.html
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
You don’t have the moral high ground here, it’s much more clouded than you make it out to be. We have about 5000 dead US troops, 100,000 dead Iraqis, 1,000,000 Iraqis displaced, and Sharia Law imposed on the nation. You tell me which situation is better.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Not to mention they’re much more inclined to be chummy with Iran. Some people are fans of the Shiite Crescent, I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top