Romney puts foot in mouth again!

And you do realize that this "Peace Through Strength" is a direct corrolary to the Monroe Doctrine and has little, if anything, to do with the point I made that this sort of diplomatic and political arrogance makes the US very unpopular abroad that this makes Americans and their interest abroad targets?

A little humility can go a long way Damo. You can often get much more accomplished diplomatically than you can by throwing teenaged temper tantrums and threats of violence.

I think constantly backing up causes more attacks and there is a balance that can be reached and the attempt is to walk that line. Nobody has ever attacked a nation because they were too strong.

If appeasement worked there would have been peace in Europe and WWII wouldn't have happened.
 
True, I should have been more careful in word usage. The idea of preventive war is stupid. They "may" give stuff to somebody, therefore we "must" do this...
Meh, it's hair splitting. You're both right in the sense that Bushco used the term "preemption" when they really meant "prevention" as preemption was more politically palatible.
 
I think constantly backing up causes more attacks and there is a balance that can be reached and the attempt is to walk that line. Nobody has ever attacked a nation because they were too strong.

If appeasement worked there would have been peace in Europe and WWII wouldn't have happened.
The false premise here Damo is that all diplomacy is somehow appeasment. It is not. Nor was it in this case. No concessions were given here to anyone and for Romney/Ryan to state that this is "appeasement" is both wrong and irresposible. Making a statement to try to diffuse anger and prevent a riot is by no stretch of the imagination an apology or appeasement.
 
The false premise here Damo is that all diplomacy is somehow appeasment. It is not. Nor was it in this case. No concessions were given here to anyone and for Romney/Ryan to state that this is "appeasement" is both wrong and irresposible. Making a statement to try to diffuse anger and prevent a riot is by no stretch of the imagination an apology or appeasement.

The false premise in your post is based on simply ignoring what the post you quoted actually said, reading only one line of it and assuming an opinion that was not expressed.
 
Well GED'sRStupid, it goes like this. Preemption is an open ended policy where anyone or anything can be percieved as a millitary threat justifying the use of violence as an instrument of national policy. For the thugish and weak minded that might sound cool but it's a stupid assed way of doing business which third rate morons just can't seem to get their head around.

The only justification for the use of violence is to defend our nation from a clear and present danger. That has been long standing US policy for over 200 years and has worked extremelly well for us and we saw first hand in Iraq what an unmittigated and immoral disaster pre-emption was. Get it?

OK. Define a clear and present danger? At what point, in your view is a country, a clear and present danger?

For example, at what point was the attack on our embassies the last two days a "clear and present danger"?

At what point was the 9-11 attack a clear and present danger?
 
The false premise here Damo is that all diplomacy is somehow appeasment. It is not. Nor was it in this case. No concessions were given here to anyone and for Romney/Ryan to state that this is "appeasement" is both wrong and irresposible. Making a statement to try to diffuse anger and prevent a riot is by no stretch of the imagination an apology or appeasement.

The appeasement was standing by while the Muslim brotherhood took over and pretending we could deal with them. After the "elections" we should have close our embassies and cut off all foreign aid.
 
My mind is boggled by the fact that Mitt is the best candidate the republicans could come up with.

While it is not surprising that your feeble mind is easily boggled, he was not the best candidate. He was chosen by the establishment and with the help of the compliant Maobama media, the field was cleared for him.

Don't you pay attention?
 
While it is not surprising that your feeble mind is easily boggled, he was not the best candidate. He was chosen by the establishment and with the help of the compliant Maobama media, the field was cleared for him.

Don't you pay attention?

Do you understand that the GOP put their most likely to win (best) candidate forward, and it is Mitt? Laughable that you would try to blame Obama for who your party selected.
 
When Mitt loses, he can blame Obama. Isn't that so clever?

:rofl2:
Mitt IS a loser, he's just stupid on foreign policy, McCain was a warhawk, and it drove his mindset ( note all the Repubs are saying 'lack of leadership' from Obama on the various upisings ( Tunisia/Morocco/Yemen/Egypt) - all because we 'lead from behind" or some such tripe.

Romney is just stupid/ I can't describe his statements that the consulate statement IS the same as the WH. as anything but "stupid"

Anyways -no more wasted key strokes on Romney. He's a blithering idjit.
 
Do you understand that the GOP put their most likely to win (best) candidate forward, and it is Mitt? Laughable that you would try to blame Obama for who your party selected.

You are a very ignorant person. The GOP establishment made the choice. I didn't say Maobama chose him. God you are fucking stupid. Go back and read what I wrote. If you don't understand it, then don't bother embarrassing yourself by responding.
 
Mitt IS a loser, he's just stupid on foreign policy, McCain was a warhawk, and it drove his mindset ( note all the Repubs are saying 'lack of leadership' from Obama on the various upisings ( Tunisia/Morocco/Yemen/Egypt) - all because we 'lead from behind" or some such tripe.

Romney is just stupid/ I can't describe his statements that the consulate statement IS the same as the WH. as anything but "stupid"

Anyways -no more wasted key strokes on Romney. He's a blithering idjit.

The Embassy falls under the purview of the President does it not? Are you saying he has no control over his Embassies? They just go rogue? Are there any depths to which you will sink to defend this loser of a President?
 
Well GED'sRStupid, it goes like this. Preemption is an open ended policy where anyone or anything can be percieved as a millitary threat justifying the use of violence as an instrument of national policy. For the thugish and weak minded that might sound cool but it's a stupid assed way of doing business which third rate morons just can't seem to get their head around.

The only justification for the use of violence is to defend our nation from a clear and present danger. That has been long standing US policy for over 200 years and has worked extremelly well for us and we saw first hand in Iraq what an unmittigated and immoral disaster pre-emption was. Get it?

OK, I will ask you again. What constitutes a clear and present danger? How did the consulate know there was a clear and present danger?

On 9-11, at what point did we know there was a clear and present danger?

Thanks in advance for what I am sure will be an awesome answer ;)
 
So what's new about Romney putting his foot into mouth again on an issue? He does it all the time, it's part of his persona?!! If this country is stupid to elect Romney president, he will take this nation to war! It's not just about jobs and the economy, it's also about shoot before you aim Romney getting us into another war or even wars?!!

116035_600.jpg


487437_10151058132566872_1032750428_n.jpg
 
Wow, Mitt sure does have a lot to learn about foreign policy and when you consider that developing and administering our nations foreign policy is a Presidents most important function, it sure does raise alarm bells. First he popped off at the mouth about the attacks on our Embassies in Egypt and Libya without knowing all the facts. He condemned Obama of appeasement and being an apologist for the statements made by the personnel at the Embassy before the attacks had even occurred in an attempt to diffuse the situation.

Not even his fellow Republicans are defeat the Embassynding his comments. They know that as the loyal opposition the smart political move is to rally around the flag. But Mitt didn't. He opened his big mouth and now he looks the fool. So much for politics stopping at the waters edge. So far Mitts recent foreign forrays have resulted in offending the Brits over their handling of the Olympics (which turned out spectacularly), getting roundly boo'd in Poland (demonstrating succinctly how unpopular US conservative politics are abroad) then undermining current US efforts opposing Iran's nuclear aspirations by siding with Israeli Likook...errr Likud extremist who are hell bent on another ME war. Then this foot in mouth moment.

Now he has Paul Ryan spreading the message of "Peace through Strength" and getting his foreign policy advice from a Bushco Neocon...who, correct me if I'm wrong, implemented the most incompetent and disastrous foreign policy in US history. Maybe someone needs to explain it very, very slowly to Paul Ryan that it is this arrogant attitude that produces hatred for Americans around the world and jeapordizes our safety and our interests abroad.

The Presidents criticism of Mitt Romney, on foreign policy, is spot on. Romney shoots first and aims later.


He looks more like a leader to most people.....Obama is the great appeaser and everyone knows it....he started in his first weeks of getting the job.....
There is no effort opposing Iran's nuclear aspirations.....he speaks out of both sides of his mouth....hes all talk and no real action....
Iran will get the bomb sooner rather than later....
Didn't you think HIS appointees at the Embassy would parrot anything different than what they were most likely instructed to parrot...?
and it DURING the rioting and not before.....
Obama is making a laughing stalk of the US in the eyes of the world.....a paper tiger....a paper tiger lef by a big mouth.....
 
Back
Top