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

[katcecelia]

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

WOW!
I wanna be like Switzerland.
Just think… if we managed to dis engage from all our military operations outside of the US we would have enough military here to protect our actual borders!

 

[colmywaykurtz]

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?

WWI was started when a Serbian anarchist killed an archduke. WWII was started when Hitler invaded Poland.

So which world war did Saddam start? I seriously doubt it was “III.” I think I would have noticed that one happening. I seriously think it has yet to happen.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

I’ll venture to say here that Ridgerunner’s favorite dessert is Shiite Crescent Rolls.

 

[KP3243]

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.

Not for anything but I believe millions of human beings are killed by abortion every year.

 

[gnjsdad]

Judging by this speech, there are at least 5 wars we can look forward to in a Romney administration.

1 - Go back to Iraq
2 - Intervene militarily in Syria
3 - Attack Iran
4 - Intervene in Libya
5 - Continue Obama’s small scale wars in Yemen, Somalia, and other places.

This?? Seriously. This is the pro-life alternative to Obama?

 

[ProVobis]

… even if they feel that any vote not for Romney is one for Obama

With over 50% of the registered voters not voting at all, that’s a lot of votes for Obama, who may not even win with that high number.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

No war is “good” in an absolute sense. People always die in a war. That’s the nature of it. Any war must be measured against the alternatives. It is indeed unfortunate that this country abandoned the allies it had gained in Iraq and thus threw away the sacrifice of the troops so Obama could say he ended the war his minions had made unpopular by incessant propaganda aimed at persuading people that Iraq was the “bad” war and Afghanistan the “good” war.

I realize there are absolute pacifists in this world. They are entitled to believe as they do. But if one is not a pacifist, (and the Church does not require pacifism of us) one needs to consider which evils are properly to be opposed or ended.

As the killer of a million people, torturer of thousands, the starter of two wars and user of WMD both in war and against his own people, as well as a breaker of the truce, Saddam Hussein was surely a sufficiently evil force to oppose.

If not him, then what evils in the world do you think are worth opposing?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Judging by this speech, there are at least 5 wars we can look forward to in a Romney administration.

1 - Go back to Iraq
2 - Intervene militarily in Syria
3 - Attack Iran
4 - Intervene in Libya
5 - Continue Obama’s small scale wars in Yemen, Somalia, and other places.

This?? Seriously. This is the pro-life alternative to Obama?

Absolute fantasy. I am only surprised you did not invent a Romney-created war against Albania. Likely Obama will invent that one shortly before the election as he has invented so many other false issues.

 

[ProVobis]

As the killer of a million people, torturer of thousands, the starter of two wars and user of WMD both in war and against his own people, as well as a breaker of the truce, Saddam Hussein was surely a sufficiently evil force to oppose.

Maybe, but why was it the responsibility of the U.S. to see this happen?

If the killer of millions is a criteria for opposing, why did the U.S. side with Stalin during the WWII?

 

[gnjsdad]

Absolute fantasy. I am only surprised you did not invent a Romney-created war against Albania.

No, but I inadvertently forgot to add Afghanistan, which Romney is reluctant to leave in 2014, again judging from his speech, which you apparently didn’t see.

 

[SamH]

Maybe, but why was it the responsibility of the U.S. to see this happen?

If the killer of millions is a criteria for opposing, why did the U.S. side with Stalin during the WWII?

Because Germany declared war on the US. That is the only reason the US ended up fighting on the side of the Soviets. Had Germany not committed national suicide on December 11, 1941 the US may not have even fought in Europe.

 

[SamH]

No, but I inadvertently forgot to add Afghanistan, which Romney is reluctant to leave in 2014, again judging from his speech, which you apparently didn’t see.

Will Obama start his war against nuclear armed Pakistan before he leaves office?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe, but why was it the responsibility of the U.S. to see this happen?

If the killer of millions is a criteria for opposing, why did the U.S. side with Stalin during the WWII?

If not ours (and that of the other allies, remember the Brits contributed more, relative to their capabilities, than we did) then whose?

The U.S. sided with Britain, which was already at war with Germany. That’s well known. Would the U.S. have entered WWII just to save Stalin, had western Europe not been occupied and Britain threatened, and had not Germany declared war on the U.S.? It may be reasonably doubted.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, but I inadvertently forgot to add Afghanistan, which Romney is reluctant to leave in 2014, again judging from his speech, which you apparently didn’t see.

As you surely know, the Armed Forces asked for sufficient troops and materiel to prevail in two “fighting seasons”. Obama wouldn’t do it, instead giving an inadequate “surge” addition to the troop strength. Whether Romney wants to do it now is not known, but may be reasonably doubted.

What Romney actually said is that announcing your date of withdrawal is foolish, and it is. He said he would not do so. You have morphed that into your own thought that he intends to extend our commitment there. Truth is, nobody but Romney knows what he intends, and possibly he can’t even assess it until he has full access to the military.

“Romney will keep us in Af/Pak” is just another Obama improvisiation ginned up because he has no real accomplishments during his administration. He’ll invent more of them before the election. Guaranteed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Will Obama start his war against nuclear armed Pakistan before he leaves office?

No. Just no. But if he gets desperate enough, he might do something stupid in Iran. One has to remember that everything he does is political. He would start WWIII if he thought it would win him the election.

 

[SamH]

No. Just no. But if he gets desperate enough, he might do something stupid in Iran. One has to remember that everything he does is political. He would start WWIII if he thought it would win him the election.

Actually it wouldn’t surprise me if he “accidently” started a war with Pakistan with a errant drone attack on the wrong target. It appears both the defense and state departments are running on auto pilot while Obama works on his golf game. He doesn’t even seem that interested in the election.

 

[estesbob]

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.

as the pope himself stated there is no moral equivalence between supporting a war and supporting unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. The former is a matter of prudential judgment the latter may never be supported bya catholic either directly or indirectly.

In addition neither candidate in the 2012 election is campaigning on killing us troops, or displacing iraqis or anybody else. One of the candidates, on the other hand, promises to reinstitute the mexico city policy which will deny funds to foreign abortion providers.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

as the pope himself stated there is no moral equivalence between supporting a war and supporting unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. The former is a matter of prudential judgment the latter may never be supported bya catholic either directly or indirectly.

In addition neither candidate in the 2012 election is campaigning on killing us troops, or displacing iraqis or anybody else. One of the candidates, on the other hand, promises to reinstitute the mexico city policy which will deny funds to foreign abortion providers.

This thread isn’t about abortion. Yes, I’m sure you are anti-abortion. Let’s, however, stick to the topic, shall we?

 

[KP3243]

Judging by this speech, there are at least 5 wars we can look forward to in a Romney administration.

1 - Go back to Iraq
2 - Intervene militarily in Syria
3 - Attack Iran
4 - Intervene in Libya
5 - Continue Obama’s small scale wars in Yemen, Somalia, and other places.

This?? Seriously. This is the pro-life alternative to Obama?

Al Queida and other Islamic funadmentalist terrorist groups are taking over all these countries you can add Lybia to your list too.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

No war is “good” in an absolute sense. People always die in a war. That’s the nature of it. Any war must be measured against the alternatives. It is indeed unfortunate that this country abandoned the allies it had gained in Iraq and thus threw away the sacrifice of the troops so Obama could say he ended the war his minions had made unpopular by incessant propaganda aimed at persuading people that Iraq was the “bad” war and Afghanistan the “good” war.

I realize there are absolute pacifists in this world. They are entitled to believe as they do. But if one is not a pacifist, (and the Church does not require pacifism of us) one needs to consider which evils are properly to be opposed or ended.

As the killer of a million people, torturer of thousands, the starter of two wars and user of WMD both in war and against his own people, as well as a breaker of the truce, Saddam Hussein was surely a sufficiently evil force to oppose.

If not him, then what evils in the world do you think are worth opposing?

It’s not an absolutist kind of moral argument I’m making against war in general. I’m reiterating his point, partially: Saddam was certainly a monster, but he was also a secularist. Leaders of that type are getting thin on the ground there anyway—why hasten the process? It leads to religious radicals getting more political traction (as they have in Iraq), and the collateral disruption is costly in human terms, too—look at the shortages of electricity and potable water in Iraq, and the precipitous decline in its health care system, which was once one of the best in the Middle East.

Anyway, if one is annoyed at him for starting wars, why did Reagan sell him weapons? And why did Ambassador Glaspie tell him we didn’t care if he settled his border dispute with Kuwait with armed force?

As far as WMDs, why didn’t we hold Egypt to account for its use of poison gas against Saudi forces in the Yemeni civil war in the sixties?

And Saddam was no more evil than the leadership of China or North Korea. Why didn’t Bush want to tangle with them? Because THEY HAD NO OIL.