• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Romney's Campaigning on Foreign Policy

HeavyPetter

HeavyPetter

Carnal Decadence
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
13,015
Reaction score
799
Location
Charlotte
I've been listening to the Romney camp's comment on current US foreign policy and I'm just befuddled by WTF they think they mean.

Has the US declined as a force in the world over the past four years? Is Obama ostensibly and intentionally managing our decline as a world power? Are we not spending enough money on the militarty as a part of GDP? Does anyone really believe that China and Russia are running our foreign policy on Syria and that if it weren't for them we'd be invading Damascus -- and that it's a good idea? Can our allies not count on us? Do they think less of us now with Obama as president? Did Obama and NATO not ultimately get rid of Quadaffi? Should he have left bin Laden alone?

While writing this post I ran across this column from The Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/the-face-of-romney-foreign-policy/261772/

With a quote from Slate.com. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...obama_s_administration_has_accomplished_.html

Condi Rice -- a top adviser in the most disastrous, reputation-crippling foreign-policy administration in decades -- has no business lecturing anybody on this score...


According to a recent survey by the Poll Research Center, 53 percent of British citizens had a favorable view of the United States in 2008, the last year of Bush's presidency. Today the figure is 60 percent. In France, the figure rose from 42 percent to 69 percent; the Czech Republic, from 45 to 54 percent; Germany, from 31 to 52 percent; Japan, from 50 to 72 percent; Mexico, from 47 to 56 percent. Only in the Arab countries (Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan) has the rating declined (and do the Republicans really care much about that?).


Another Pew Poll, released just this week, about global attitudes toward President Obama as a leader makes Rice's concerns seem ridiculous. As summarized by CNN, 87 percent of the Germans, 86 percent of the French, 80 percent of the British, and 74 percent of the Japanese have confidence in Obama--in each case, more confidence than they have in their own leaders. More striking still, 92 percent of the French, 89 percent of the Germans, 73 percent of the British, and 66 percent of the Japanese want Obama re-elected.


What does Condi Rice know about Obama's reputation in the world that the citizens of the world don't?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Romney should stay as far away from Foreign Policy as possible in this election. Obama has done a great job of repairing all the damage done by the previous administration and I *hope* our next president, be it Obama or Romney, will continue to value and improve global relationships.

Also, anyone who has travelled abroad, especially in Europe, can attest to how much more the average person in this countries knows about US politics than the average US citizen. It's really sad.
 
Yes, no, yes, yes, no, no, yes, no.
 
I've also heard hawkish comments about supporting Israel. Blindly aligning with Israeli initiatives doesn't seem like a great strategy for propigating peace in the Middle East. I mean, they're ready to bomb Iran and they're bulldozing people's homes along with American activists on the Gaza Strip. but Romney's over there sucking Netanyahu's circumcision scar.
 
DEACisGO said:
Romney should stay as far away from Foreign Policy as possible in this election. Obama has done a great job of repairing all the damage done by the previous administration and I *hope* our next president, be it Obama or Romney, will continue to value and improve global relationships.

Also, anyone who has travelled abroad, especially in Europe, can attest to how much more the average person in this countries knows about US politics than the average US citizen. It's really sad.
Click to expand...

Wait, you actually think our global relationships have improved?
 
That is my experience, and HP's quote backs my view. People seriously did not like Bush and his standoffish, holier-than-though policies.

ETA: Talking about our allies.
 
DEACisGO said:
Romney should stay as far away from Foreign Policy as possible in this election. Obama has done a great job of repairing all the damage done by the previous administration and I *hope* our next president, be it Obama or Romney, will continue to value and improve global relationships.

Also, anyone who has travelled abroad, especially in Europe, can attest to how much more the average person in this countries knows about US politics than the average US citizen. It's really sad.
Click to expand...

Agree. Foreign Policy is Obama's strength in my opinion.
 
It's bad, I actually said out loud last night "Why is Michelle Obama speaking at the RNC". Still feel like an ass.
 
DEACisGO said:
That is my experience, and HP's quote backs my view. People seriously did not like Bush and his standoffish, holier-than-though policies.
Click to expand...

So improving public approval ratings in France, Japan, and the Czech Republic are evidence that Obama has improved our relationships with foreign nations? Our relationship with those countries is going to be strong whether or not 20% more people like the United States because they think Obama is cool. In countries that actually matter strategically (you know, those countries that the article just shrugged off), Obama is not only less popular with the populace, he's distrusted by the leaders. It's true that many foreign leaders were not fans of Bush's policies. How do you think they are responding to Obama sending unmanned drones over their airspace without their permission to bomb their citizens? How is the "reset" with Russia going? Is Putin coming around now that he doesn't have to deal with that bastard Bush?
 
TR1982 said:
So improving public approval ratings in France, Japan, and the Czech Republic are evidence that Obama has improved our relationships with foreign nations? Our relationship with those countries is going to be strong whether or not 20% more people like the United States because they think Obama is cool. In countries that actually matter strategically (you know, those countries that the article just shrugged off), Obama is not only less popular with the populace, he's distrusted by the leaders. It's true that many foreign leaders were not fans of Bush's policies. How do you think they are responding to Obama sending unmanned drones over their airspace without their permission to bomb their citizens? How is the "reset" with Russia going? Is Putin coming around now that he doesn't have to deal with that bastard Bush?
Click to expand...

Yes, strong evidence. Why would you want to piss off our close allies? If I've learned anything from history, it's that you always need to have good relations with your closest allies, and when you take them for granted, they won't be there for you when you need their help. Maybe you assume that no matter how you treat someone, person or nation, that they'll always support you?

As for Pakistan, Obama did the right thing to continue drone strikes. They are BY FAR the most effective tool used in the Afghan campaign. He could have easily caved in to public pressure, but we would have lost our most valuable tool over there. He listened to his military advisers, and made the right call.

ETA: Just saw the part about Russia. Got nothing here, Putin is crazy?

MOAR EDIT: Also just wanted to say that I was VERY glad that we decided to let NATO broadly deal with the Libya situation instead of going in guns blazing, you're with us or against us, yeehaw! etc. That is another change from the previous few administrations that is warranted. We need to set the stage for coalitions to be taking action, not just the US doing all the dirty work.
 
Last edited:
DEACisGO said:
Yes, strong evidence. Why would you want to piss off our close allies? If I've learned anything from history, it's that you always need to have good relations with your closest allies, and when you take them for granted, they won't be there for you when you need their help. Maybe you assume that no matter how you treat someone, person or nation, that they'll always support you?

As for Pakistan, Obama did the right thing to continue drone strikes. They are BY FAR the most effective tool used in the Afghan campaign. He could have easily caved in to public pressure, but we would have lost our most valuable tool over there. He listened to his military advisers, and made the right call.
Click to expand...

So are you actually going to claim that our relationship with our allies is stronger because 15-20% more of their population likes us more now? And even if that's true in some quantifiable way, is that really something to be hanging your hat on? I'd argue our relationship with our allies would be strong no matter what, considering the fact that we are largely responsible for their security, we have many shared interests, and we are huge trading partners. A better question that could be put to the populace to gauge how strong our relationship is would be, "Do you consider the United States to be an important ally of ______". In all those countries, I'd be shocked if the answer wasn't uniformly around 90% in favor of the affirmative. Europeans are going to approve or disapprove of the United States based on the most recent dumb thing the President said or how arrogant Americans appear to be on any given day. That doesn't actually reflect their attitude towards their country's relationship with the United States. If the number of people who saw us as an important ally decreased markedly, that's when you should start worrying about deteriorating relationships.
 
What about the situation where troops need to be sent from said ally to help the US with some ground/air whatever campaign? Seems to be that 15-25% makes a LOT of difference in getting an ally to meaningfully contribute to a war effort rather than just sitting on the sidelines.

Agree with your statement about the "important ally" etc. We're probably splitting hairs but I view keeping our allies very close as important, whereas you think they will be our allies no matter what, which is a common and valid thought.
 
DEACisGO said:
What about the situation where troops need to be sent from said ally to help the US with some ground/air whatever campaign? Seems to be that 15-25% makes a LOT of difference in getting an ally to meaningfully contribute to a war effort rather than just sitting on the sidelines.

Agree with your statement about the "important ally" etc. We're probably splitting hairs but I view keeping our allies very close as important, whereas you think they will be our allies no matter what, which is a common and valid thought.
Click to expand...

We are the world's sole superpower. Our military has achieved a level of relative superiority never before seen in history. We don't "need" troops from allied nations, and they know that. Why risk their own citizens and political capital in a war that is going to be won or lost solely by the United States? The ISAF saw only nominal military contributions from most NATO members, and the War in Afghanistan was widely approved of in Europe, at least in its initial stages. The United States contributed 90,000 troops to Afghanistan. The next largest contributor was Great Britain, with 9,500.
 
But WHY do we need to have that relative superiority? So that we can continue to reroute money raised (a lot which is from new debt) from our citizens to the military budget while the other countries reap the benefits? Things need to change, we need to STOP footing the bill for every world police action which the primary benefactors are non-US citizens.
 
DEACisGO said:
But WHY do we need to have that relative superiority? So that we can continue to reroute money raised (a lot which is from new debt) from our citizens to the military budget while the other countries reap the benefits? Things need to change, we need to STOP footing the bill for every world police action which the primary benefactors are non-US citizens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was about to say "What's so fucking great about that?," but this post is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top