• 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

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...

So we can maintain a global international order that is extremely beneficial to us and all other nations.
 
41% of the worlds military spending is by the US. Is that kind of spending the only way we can conduct trade safely in the world? Should some of our allies not be on the hook for a little of this?
 
Wrangor said:
Agree. Foreign Policy is Obama's strength in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Romney's said some dumb things and run a crappy campaign, but giving Obama an F on foreign policy was a low point. That's not even remotely credible and Mitt hasn't repeated his ridiculous claim.
 
TR1982 said:
So we can maintain a global international order that is extremely beneficial to us and all other nations.
Click to expand...

I think those other nations should share the bill is all I'm saying. The US should not be the only world policeman, and the US citizens shouldn't have to foot so much of the bill.
 
Not to mention lives.
 
HeavyPetter said:
41% of the worlds military spending is by the US. Is that kind of spending the only way we can conduct trade safely in the world? Should some of our allies not be on the hook for a little of this?
Click to expand...

Sure, but then you risk the stability of the system. A multipolar international order is much more difficult to maintain than a unipolar order. Factionalism breeds geopolitical competition, which can lead to trade wars and open military conflict. The fact that the United States accounts for 41% of world military spending is more reflective of the fact that traditional world powers have drastically cut their militaries. United States military spending as a percentage of national output is about normal for a great power.

The best you can hope to achieve in terms of international stability with a multipolar order is something along the lines of the Concert of Europe. Of course, while significant open European conflict only occurred once before it broke down, during the Crimean War, peripheral colonial conflicts were widespread and costly (yes, much more widespread and much more costly than they are now). Point being, we can cede our position as the undisputed leader of the world, but we better be prepared to fight for our interests, and those fights are going to be a lot worse than Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam.
 
But if that's the world order that we want to maintain, shouldn't those who benefit from it the most be the ones most willing to bankroll it. Because it's pretty obvious that that they didn't build the military.
 
I'm not advocating we "cede" our position necessarily, but that we use that position to pressure others to help us along the way. For example, let's say Belarus decides they want to start a war with Sweden tomorrow. I don't think the US should have any role there outside of a participant in a European problem. We can contribute supplies, etc, but there are enough developed nations in the EU to handle the majority of it. Let's say the EU says the US should handle it, then we should say "have fun with that" rather than, "fine, we'll clean up your mess". We have a tremendous amount of leverage in that situation and other similar situations, and we haven't used it effectively in the past. If they want us to lead, fine, but we have to demand support, troops, trade, etc, in return.
 
The people Romney has surrounded himself with on foreign policy have been proven to be failures of historical levels.

What a great manager!!!!
 
DEACisGO said:
I'm not advocating we "cede" our position necessarily, but that we use that position to pressure others to help us along the way. For example, let's say Belarus decides they want to start a war with Sweden tomorrow. I don't think the US should have any role there outside of a participant in a European problem. We can contribute supplies, etc, but there are enough developed nations in the EU to handle the majority of it. Let's say the EU says the US should handle it, then we should say "have fun with that" rather than, "fine, we'll clean up your mess". We have a tremendous amount of leverage in that situation and other similar situations, and we haven't used it effectively in the past. If they want us to lead, fine, but we have to demand support, troops, trade, etc, in return.
Click to expand...

If something were to threaten the interests and stability of Europe, then there is no doubt that European nations would play a much larger role. We saw that in Libya. As for maintaining the international system as a whole, it is a system that we set up, that we maintain, that we control, and that is largely beneficial to us. Yes, it is beneficial to other nations as well, but there is no reason for them to contribute in any significant way to its maintenance when it is obvious to them that it is in our national interest to maintain it, whether they help or not. It's basically the free-rider problem. Such are the costs of being a global hegemon. Do the rewards outweigh the costs? I would argue that they do.

In any event, military spending in the United States is not even high by historical great power standards.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
TR, when did you start hating Milton Friedman so much?
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever claimed to be a libertarian. I love Milton Friedman, but I don't agree with him on everything, and certainly not on unilateral duty elimination.
 
Are the Republicans saving discussion on the economy until October? They just KEEP bringing other things to the forefront of the discussion that they should be running away from. Foreign policy? Yeah, that should be the last thing that Romney wants to be in the discussion against an incumbent with a solid record.
 
TR1982 said:
If something were to threaten the interests and stability of Europe, then there is no doubt that European nations would play a much larger role. We saw that in Libya. As for maintaining the international system as a whole, it is a system that we set up, that we maintain, that we control, and that is largely beneficial to us. Yes, it is beneficial to other nations as well, but there is no reason for them to contribute in any significant way to its maintenance when it is obvious to them that it is in our national interest to maintain it, whether they help or not. It's basically the free-rider problem. Such are the costs of being a global hegemon. Do the rewards outweigh the costs? I would argue that they do.

In any event, military spending in the United States is not even high by historical great power standards.
Click to expand...

Like who? The Nazis? The Roman Empire? The US & Soviet Union?
 
I don't understand how someone could have the audacity to criticize Obama for drone strikes while supporting an administration that sent American troops into Iraq. Jesus H. Christ. How can any Republican talk with a straight face about respecting sovereignty of other countries while actively campaigning for military strikes on Iran. Drones are just so Republican in feel it should be the dems bitching about them.
 
HeavyPetter said:
Like who? The Nazis? The Roman Empire? The US & Soviet Union?
Click to expand...

Nazi Germany would be one of them. So would post-WWII United States and Soviet Union. Also every 19th century power that we have data on, Prussia, France, Great Britain, Japan, Austria, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, China, the German Confederation, and post-unification Italy.
 
P4nthers11 said:
I don't understand how someone could have the audacity to criticize Obama for drone strikes while supporting an administration that sent American troops into Iraq. Jesus H. Christ. How can any Republican talk with a straight face about respecting sovereignty of other countries while actively campaigning for military strikes on Iran. Drones are just so Republican in feel it should be the dems bitching about them.
Click to expand...

Who was criticizing his drone strikes?
 
TR1982 said:
Nazi Germany would be one of them. So would post-WWII United States and Soviet Union. Also every 19th century power that we have data on, Prussia, France, Great Britain, Japan, Austria, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, China, the German Confederation, and post-unification Italy.
Click to expand...

We're not fighting history.
 
TR1982 said:
Nazi Germany would be one of them. So would post-WWII United States and Soviet Union. Also every 19th century power that we have data on, Prussia, France, Great Britain, Japan, Austria, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, China, the German Confederation, and post-unification Italy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my response was tongue in cheek. A number of those listed were gearing up to try to take over the world. Or is that what you're advocating for the US?
 
RJKarl said:
The people Romney has surrounded himself with on foreign policy have been proven to be failures of historical levels.
Click to expand...

McCain's foreign policy expertise certainly didn't help him much in 2008, so why bring out the old cranky guy who lost to the bug-eared Kenyan Socialist? Condi's ties to W are equally as helpful. Those two only look good when compared to Cheney and Rumsfeld.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top