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

[Mrs_Sally]

Well, I don’t know that the Holy Father intended this as broadly as you do. The French certainly helped arm the American revolutionaries. But for them, we might still be singing “God Save the Queen”.

Ideally, the international community would create a peaceful solution. It would also persuade the Islamic terrorists worldwide to stop killing innocent people. It would also end abortion. It would do lots of things, but it doesn’t. The Holy Father isn’t going to back one faction against another, and he can definitely complain about the arms trade, which, as we know, is totally unrestrained, and from every direction.

If (and one has to be skeptical) Romney really is able to identify a faction composed of decent people and aid it with arms, money and other aid to a successful outcome, can that truly be worse than just leaving it to Iran to arm the worst of them so they can kill the best of them?

Obama, unfortunately, has seemed always to back the worst. **But that does not mean there are no decent people in the Middle East at all who are worthy of our support. **But I will readily agree it would be tough to identify them reliably. Nevertheless, doing tough jobs successfully is what the presidency is all about, or ought to be.

I am absolutely sure that there are decent people in the Middle East worthy of our support. As you say, figuring that at is one of the tough jobs the president has to do. I certainly hope that Romney has a better sense about this than Obama. And that he listens to the advice of a strong foreign policy team rather than skipping briefings altogether.

I don’t think though that rebels can be hunted worldwide and completely stopped through military efforts. That will take peace negotiations, improvements in education, humanitarian aid, and lots and lots of prayers.

 

[kimmielittle]

But we are in this, as in all things, morally obliged to oppose evil if we have the means to do so. In this election, it’s quite clear that we have the means of opposing the evils of abortion, promotion of homosexual “marriage” and of oppressing the Church, all of which are quite clearly part of the Obama agenda.

And Romney is the only “not Obama” who has any chance of success. The Church never tells anybody “who to vote for”. But it is quite clear from what the Pope and bishops have said that we cannot support Obama. So, do we oppose the evils he espouses and promotes, or don’t we?

If we saw someone about to kill a child or desecrate a church and had the means (easy means in this case) to prevent it, can anyone credibly argue that we have no moral obligation do do so? Can anyone credibly argue that we do not sin in failing to do so?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Like King Abdullah

military-veterans-for-justice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=13

My point is, like I said before, it is not clear who are the “good guys” because you have a dictator on one side and a group supported by terrorists on the other side. It’s a tough call, and I don’t think there is a morally superior option.

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.

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t think though that rebels can be hunted worldwide and completely stopped through military efforts. That will take peace negotiations, improvements in education, humanitarian aid, and lots and lots of prayers.

IMO There are many terrorists who do not want peace - they would have made reasonable demands, by now. These people want / promote death

 

[Mrs_Sally]

But we are in this, as in all things, morally obliged to oppose evil if we have the means to do so. In this election, it’s quite clear that we have the means of opposing the evils of abortion, promotion of homosexual “marriage” and of oppressing the Church, all of which are quite clearly part of the Obama agenda.

And Romney is the only “not Obama” who has any chance of success. The Church never tells anybody “who to vote for”. But it is quite clear from what the Pope and bishops have said that we cannot support Obama. So, do we oppose the evils he espouses and promotes, or don’t we?

If we saw someone about to kill a child or desecrate a church and had the means (easy means in this case) to prevent it, can anyone credibly argue that we have no moral obligation do do so? Can anyone credibly argue that we do not sin in failing to do so?

I agree that voting for Romney will help with the fight against gay marraige, some abortion, and religious liberty. I think he is a good candidate in many respects.

I want to make it absolutely clear though, that whatever EWTN or someone’s pastor is saying, the Church does not tell anyone “who to vote for” or even that we must vote in any specific election. The Church gives Catholics worldwide guidance on what to look for in our civil leaders and we follow that guidance as best we can in accordance with our conscience and our understanding of the issues.

No one is condemned to hell for a third party vote or even for not voting if they, after consideration of the church’s guidance and their understanding of the facts, determine that as the best course.

Now, let’s get back to mid-east policies, shall we?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Hmmmmm…

** From the NationalMemo**

You all are debating a different foreign policy speech - it seems - cause Mr Obama has the same ideas

nationalmemo.com/romney-offers-much-criticism-few-solutions-in-foreign-policy-speech/

Question: If this is true and they are Mr Obama and Mr Romney ] saying the same…kinda mutes the debate here?

I would suggest, in a friendly way, Kimmie, that notwithstanding similarities, the issue is not mooted.

On one hand, there is a candidate who has succeeded at virtually everything he touched in his life, and against significant odds. Nobody could do what he did without being very good in negotiating, in presenting options to both friends and adversaries, that are persuasive to his point of view. When his objectives did not work out, he recognized it and cut the losses.

On the other hand, there is a candidate who never actually ran anything in his life except the presidency of the U.S., and in that endeavor he has failed at everything he touched. But, having learned nothing from his failures, he proposes more of the same.

So, to the extent their ostensible international goals may be similar, which seems the more likely person to actually succeed in such endeavors?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

We actually did succeed in Iraq, but threw it away.

No, we didn’t. People point to the “success” of Bush’s “surge,” and the al-Anbar “Awakening.” It was illusory.

The surge was timed to start just as violence in Iraqi cities was declining naturally, due to sectarian cleansing processes that were reaching a conclusion, making neighborhoods much more homogeneous in sectarian composition, which was bound to reduce violence. Getting in position to apparently “cause” this, and then taking credit for it, is hardly a real success.

The al-Anbar awakening was a success in turning Sunnis against al Qaeda, but al Qaeda need not have gotten a foothold in Iraq in the first place if we hadn’t thrown out Saddam.

It’s like we stabbed Iraqis in the back, then congratulated ourselves for doing such a neat job in sewing up the wound.

What about all the people killed by al Qaeda in Iraq because we gave them the opening? Nothing we can ever do will get them back.

Women are still taking their lives in their hands in that country, by holding jobs or even just going out in public unveiled, or without male relatives accompanying them.

And in the overall picture, we gave Shiites the preponderance of power in the government, and they promptly cozied up to Iran. Then, just as with the election of Hamas in the Palestinian area (in elections Bush and his people pushed for), Bush and co were wondering “What went wrong?”

 

[Mrs_Sally]

IMO There are many terrorists who do not want peace - they would have made reasonable demands, by now. These people want / promote death

That is no reason to not pray for them and work to change the situation around them. In fact, more reason to do just that. We are not to pursue our enemy, but to love him. We can protect ourselves yes. But we are safer with stable, prosperous, well-educated neighbors than with desperate people who fight because they don’t know anything else.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree that voting for Romney will help with the fight against gay marraige, some abortion, and religious liberty. I think he is a good candidate in many respects.

I want to make it absolutely clear though, that whatever EWTN or someone’s pastor is saying, the Church does not tell anyone “who to vote for” or even that we must vote in any specific election. The Church gives Catholics worldwide guidance on what to look for in our civil leaders and we follow that guidance as best we can in accordance with our conscience and our understanding of the issues.

No one is condemned to hell for a third party vote or even for not voting if they, after consideration of the church’s guidance and their understanding of the facts, determine that as the best course.

Now, let’s get back to mid-east policies, shall we?

We do have a moral obligation to vote, and to vote against the intrinsic evils of abortion, homosexual marriage and persecution of the Church. No rationalization makes that untrue, and Obama is the promoter of those evils. No real mystery to this.

Now, returning to the Islamic world, it may be that someone other than Obama will find those partisans in Libya who are not Islamic jihadists and aid them in trying to make something of that country. Obama has failed at that, completely, and not just in Libya. He seems to have some kind of ideological blinders on when it comes to recognizing when he is aiding the worst people on earth. One prefers not to think it, but perhaps he thinks rule by violent radicals is some phase they must somehow go through. Perhaps he thinks rule by such radicals is somehow good for people. Nobody knows Obama’s mind; perhaps not even himself. But the results have been terrible and he shows no signs of even recognizing it, let alone doing anything to rectify it.

 

[kimmielittle]

I would suggest, in a friendly way, Kimmie, that notwithstanding similarities, the issue is not mooted.

On one hand, there is a candidate who has succeeded at virtually everything he touched in his life, and against significant odds. Nobody could do what he did without being very good in negotiating, in presenting options to both friends and adversaries, that are persuasive to his point of view. When his objectives did not work out, he recognized it and cut the losses.

On the other hand, there is a candidate who never actually ran anything in his life except the presidency of the U.S., and in that endeavor he has failed at everything he touched. But, having learned nothing from his failures, he proposes more of the same.

So, to the extent their ostensible international goals may be similar, which seems the more likely person to actually succeed in such endeavors?

I Agree

I was trying to point out that according to the Obama favored NationalMemo…The worries over Mr Romney’s Foreign policies…become mute - as NationalMemo says they are the same.

 

[kimmielittle]

That is no reason to not pray for them and work to change the situation around them. In fact, more reason to do just that. We are not to pursue our enemy, but to love him. We can protect ourselves yes. But we are safer with stable, prosperous, well-educated neighbors than with desperate people who fight because they don’t know anything else.

IMO We can also help protect the innocent…not just our own.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, we didn’t. People point to the “success” of Bush’s “surge,” and the al-Anbar “Awakening.” It was illusory.

The surge was timed to start just as violence in Iraqi cities was declining naturally, due to sectarian cleansing processes that were reaching a conclusion, making neighborhoods much more homogeneous in sectarian composition, which was bound to reduce violence. Getting in position to apparently “cause” this, and then taking credit for it, is hardly a real success.

The al-Anbar awakening was a success in turning Sunnis against al Qaeda, but al Qaeda need not have gotten a foothold in Iraq in the first place if we hadn’t thrown out Saddam.

It’s like we stabbed Iraqis in the back, then congratulated ourselves for doing such a neat job in sewing up the wound.

What about all the people killed by al Qaeda in Iraq because we gave them the opening? Nothing we can ever do will get them back.

Women are still taking their lives in their hands in that country, by holding jobs or even just going out in public unveiled, or without male relatives accompanying them.

And in the overall picture, we gave Shiites the preponderance of power in the government, and they promptly cozied up to Iran. Then, just as with the election of Hamas in the Palestinian area (in elections Bush and his people pushed for), Bush and co were wondering “What went wrong?”

Did I say Bush succeeded in the Gaza elections? No I didn’t. Carter, of course, declared the results valid, but one still wonders about that.

Are you seriously saying you would put Saddam back in power if you could?

Not to defend Al Qaeda here, but they killed far fewer people in Iraq than Saddam Hussein did. And they and other terrorists were operating in Iraq before the wars. Remember Saddam’s training camp for terrorists from all over the world? Remember the rewards he gave parents for sending their children out as suicide bombers to kill Israelis?

The Sunni awakening was a success. The Kurds were always favorable to us. Even many of the Shiites were favorable, or at least against the Iranian-backed radical Sadr. Remember Sistani, who opposed terrorism within Shiite ranks? Remember that Sadr was hiding in Iran until we left?

But you’re right. We did stab Iraq in the back…by leaving when we did, and for the worst reason imaginable…that Obama characterized it as the “bad war” while characterizing the hopless entanglement in Af/Pak as the “good war”, and all just for political purposes.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Obama has not been even hearing the advice of his generals and diplomats, let alone following it. You are right to say he might not even know what his own mind is.

We can’t simply abandon that part of the world though since we are so tied to the oil they export. If we talk about developing different sources of energy or better/different vehicles, I think Romney’s buisness experience will help him to better see the consequences - good and bad - of the alternatives that have been proposed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Have other things to do now, folks. Have a nice evening.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Did I say Bush succeeded in the Gaza elections? No I didn’t. Carter, of course, declared the results valid, but one still wonders about that.

Are you seriously saying you would put Saddam back in power if you could?

Not to defend Al Qaeda here, but they killed far fewer people in Iraq than Saddam Hussein did. And they and other terrorists were operating in Iraq before the wars. Remember Saddam’s training camp for terrorists from all over the world? Remember the rewards he gave parents for sending their children out as suicide bombers to kill Israelis?

The Sunni awakening was a success. The Kurds were always favorable to us. Even many of the Shiites were favorable, or at least against the Iranian-backed radical Sadr. Remember Sistani, who opposed terrorism within Shiite ranks? Remember that Sadr was hiding in Iran until we left?

But you’re right. We did stab Iraq in the back…by leaving when we did, and for the worst reason imaginable…that Obama characterized it as the “bad war” while characterizing the hopless entanglement in Af/Pak as the “good war”, and all just for political purposes.

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.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

And Saddam was NOT in bed with al Qaeda. Osama contacted the Saudis, and offered to take his forces from Afghanistan into Kuwait and fight the Iraqis when Saddam occupied it.

 

[HansTrappist]

Our Holy Father adamantly opposes the arming of the rebels in Syria. He supports neither Asad nor the rebels but calls for the international community to create a peaceful solution. If Romney is gravely wrong in his Syrian policy of arming rebels according to our Holy Father, how can we be sure his entire middle east foreign policy is not going to create more violence and suffering like what happened when Bush invaded Iraq preemptively? It certainly sounds at odds with our Catholic faith.

What a letdown this speech was. And I was just starting to warm to Romney after his stellar first debate against Obama.

Romney made a huge mistake in this foreign policy speech. He doubled down and this time it might cost him the election. He basically agreed with Obama’s unconstitutional, reckless, economically suicidal foreign policy of intervention. The only disagreement is on how this foreign policy should be administered and mangaged. Romney thinks he can do a better job at intervening. His foreign policy is Bush II on steroids. What a mistake. He proabably just lost most of the Independent vote which means he will lose the election.

 

[HansTrappist]

Neither party believes in non-intervention, esp in the Middle East… just matter of degree and reason behind involvement
Although, yes that is scary and counter-intuitive… any guns will be available to either side
And why are we the world’s armory anyway?

The situation in Syria is grave.

Innocent people are dying.

Many of the leading Catholic authorities in Syria are on the record stating that the rebels are actually Islamic extremists, largely al Qaeda.

Our own State Department and other foreign intelligence servies even admit that al Qaeda has assumed an active leadership and organizational role within the rebel rank and file who are largely comprised of Islamic extremist militants from across the war torn regions of the Arab “Spring.”

In case anyone has forgotten, we are still at war with al Qaeda. So, for Obama and Romney to continue to bolster support for “the rebels” amounts to Treason in my book.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Our Holy Father adamantly opposes the arming of the rebels in Syria. He supports neither Asad nor the rebels but calls for the international community to create a peaceful solution. If Romney is gravely wrong in his Syrian policy of arming rebels according to our Holy Father, how can we be sure his entire middle east foreign policy is not going to create more violence and suffering like what happened when Bush invaded Iraq preemptively? It certainly sounds at odds with our Catholic faith.

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.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.