Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: There Was No Debate On Foreign Policy

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 23, 2012, 3:55 a.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"As we listen to Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, it is worth saying that a thoughtful foreign policy isn't about who can drop the most bombs." - Dennis Kucinich

What foreign policy debate? They essentially agreed on drone strikes, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and more.

IRAN

In regards to Iran - "I'm glad that Governor Romney agrees with the steps that we're taking. You know, there have been times, Governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign, where it sounded like you thought that you'd do the same things we did, but you'd say them louder and somehow that -- that would make a difference." - Obama

Over and over again Obama and Romney were talking about the "Iranian threat." Both agreed it will not be tolerated and a military option is possible if US demands are not met... as well as they would join Israel if they were to get in a war with Iran. You might have heard that Netenyahu really wants to go to war with Iran. "In fact, this week we'll be carrying out the largest military exercise with Israel in history, this very week." - Obama

Romney started talking about how harsh sanctions would be against Iran under his presidency, then Obama responded and seemed to brag about crippling the civilian economy in Iran. "We then organized the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their economy is in shambles." - Obama.

Drone Strikes

"it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it" - Mitt Romney

Complete disregard to constitutional and international law with no congressional oversight. They never mentioned that about the drones strikes.

War Spending

Mitt Romney made comments about military spending needing to increase. Obama responds "Military spending has gone up every single year I have been in office." While they might disagree on a set number, both seem to be okay with outrageous war spending. By 2020 a trillion dollars in interest will have accrued on the debts from these wars.

Afghanistan

"we'll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014." - Romney agrees with Obama on waiting until it's been 13 years of war in Afghanistan before ending the war and bringing the troops home. No talk on ending the war sooner from either side.

Syria

Both agreed on sanctions and funding/arming a rebel opposition. There was a slight disagreement where Obama did mention more needs to be looked into first before they just start giving people weapons. Which is odd because they looked the other way when they helped the "Libyan rebels," some known to be associated with al Qaeda, and bombed civilians in the name of saving civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, mass murders perpetuated by the rebels followed the extrajudicial killing of Gaddafi. Now the country is awash with guns, is a security nightmare and is a haven for terrorist groups like al Qaeda.

Egypt

"I believe, as the president indicated, and said at the time that I supported his -- his action there." Romney responded when asked about Egypt and Mubarak.

Iraq

The big difference of the night "Too hasty" and yes even "tragic" in regards to what he called a "precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq. That was Mitt's claim a while back.... In tonight debate he said "We don't want another Iraq, we don't want another Afghanistan. That's not the right course for us." Basically sounds like he's saying drone strikes. Not sure. He flipped and he flopped on this issue... or did he? He didn't really say much about Iraq.

After a while it seemed they agreed so much on so many of the topics they had to switch to the economy and general motors just so they could disagree on something.

"We want a peaceful planet. We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they're going to have a bright and prosperous future, not be at war." - Romney.... because in his mind war creates peace and bombs are liberators.

42 Comments

42 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

Romney started talking about how harsh sanctions would be against Iran under his presidency, then Obama responded and seemed to brag about crippling the civilian economy in Iran. "We then organized the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their economy is in shambles." - Obama.

economies are easier to break than create

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

for sure. I still can't believe he was bragging about that. I felt ashamed for voting for him in 2008.

More WMD lies.

Should have voted my conscience in 2008. I don't like having blood on my hands.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Of course there was no debate.

Interesting though in last nights debate, Obama admitted, in so many words, the the U.S.A. is fueling all that fighting in Syria as the U.S.A. is leading, organizing, and funding the "rebels." But then again, we all already knew that.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Pretty accurate, and sad.There is nothing sane about war. There is nothing sane about death squads as the cradle of our innovation. How can the bar for normal include acceptance of children as collateral damage? How can the bar for normal include death as the pinnacle of our technology? There is nothing sane about those who accept it or the practice and anyone even talking of war should be locked away with the criminally insane, whether it be Ahmed or Obama, Putin or Elizabeth . Thats what we do with mass murderers. We don't elect them to office, unless we too are insane.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Most people are insane.

They have to vote for Romney because of Obama or they have to vote for Obama because of Romney!

At least that's what the democrats and republicans have been telling me.

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 1 year ago

So....which country produces the most oil?

P-oil-i-tics!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yes. Lovely little piece or oped was written. They just want to buy the world a coke. Really.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

This debate was strange in Rombot's awkward and inconsistent "agreement" with a predigested list of hawkish current policies.

Think: Who is Rombot going to sway in his favor being consistent with his previous campaign foreign policy statements? Nobody. The Hawks and Authoritarians have been in the bag for any Republicon before Obama even won in 2008. There's no more Votes to gain here.

So who was he appealing to? Dog whistle for malcontents. The ditsy both-same crowd, desperately seeking verification. The millions of newbie brats just looking for justification for their asinine 2010 teabag blunder of petulance. Playing to their peevish political arrested development, Rombot may have hit pay dirt! 2010 deja, deja, deja vu!

Case in point, princess sameness: "Both parties pretty much agree !! And The Empire Grinds On !!!"

Beelzebub

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

It does not matter what Rombot says. All the racists are going to vote for him no matter what he says. If he don't win, he'll at least get all their five buck donations.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Sad but true, on top of election fraud.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Mittens take on the Navy.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

//Mitt Romney made comments about military spending needing to increase. Obama responds "Military spending has gone up every single year I have been in office."//

Obama is merely maintaining a military budget, but isn't increasing the spending by much.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Both of these candidates plan to bomb countries in 2013

Does that represent you?

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Syria

Both agreed on sanctions and funding/arming a rebel opposition. There was a slight disagreement where Obama did mention more needs to be looked into first before they just start giving people weapons. Which is odd because they looked the other way when they helped the "Libyan rebels," some known to be associated with al Qaeda, and bombed civilians in the name of saving civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, mass murders perpetuated by the rebels followed the extrajudicial killing of Gaddafi. Now the country is awash with guns, is a security nightmare and is a haven for terrorist groups like al Qaeda.'

While OWS had issued a call for intervention in Syria I could not find it on this website any more so I guess they've reconsidered. Smart if they did.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

If OWS turned into a "we need to bomb them" movement... I'd probably lose all faith in society.

[-] 0 points by Thisischris737 (0) 1 year ago

Their was never going to any debate, they are clod tracking the uns. and the even thought, we have-they take

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Does it matter that 32 of the 33 votes against the vote to withdraw quicker from Afghan were republicans.?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00210

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

That's great. My post is about the executive branch.

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh then I guess it's ok that your repubs don't support the execuitve branch withdrawing from Afghan sooner.

And I'm sure you don't care about the repubs who tried to prevent indef detention repeal.

As I suspected and stated all along, you don't care about stopping these military actions or rights violations. You only care to attack the President with unfounded partisan rhetoric.

LOL Transparent, and pathetic.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

My "repubs" ?

You are so simple minded. Let me know when you figure out how to open that box mind.

Funny how Obama doesn't even support withdrawing sooner. Weird he agrees with Romney about 2014. Establishment hacks. You still think Libya was a liberation. And the republicans think they gave democracy to Iraq. You're all a fucking joke. You can fuck off with the rest of the democrat and republican hacks on this forum.

I just want to go one day without you party hacks accusing me of not blaming Obama enough or accusing me of blaming him too much.

You're all a distraction from real topics.

FOREIGN POLICY

It's fucking great that 33 democrats think 2014 is fucking awesome. It's still bullshit because NOW is the real solution. Of course REPUBLICAN ARE PRO - WAR I say this all the time.

If you read my post I said it about Romney.

now fuck off peck

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Guess I hit that nerve of truth. LOL.

"you still think Libya was....." You don't speak for me. Stop trying to twist & distract. Afghan, & indef detention had votes 3 days ago & vast difference between the parties became evident.

I MUST call them your repubs because why else would you stay silent on current repubs actions of pro war/pro rights violations. Why? Because it don't conform to your thread.

That is laughable.!

You wanna go 1 day without criticism? Do not engage! Otherwise grow the fuck up and welcome debate.

Regarding the military action, & rights violations I propose to you, Protest against all pols (regardless of party) who support indef detention, and longer Afghan engagement.

Identify those specific pols, denounce those specific pols, humiliate them, put pressure on them. ALL pols must see that they can't do this without paying a price.

Or limit your efforts to attacking one politician and be label a dishonest partisan hack.

[-] -2 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

Romney plans to increase military spending Romney has mentioned the possible use of pre-emptive warfare.

The Differences between Romney and Obama on Foreign Policy are huge, but sometimes Romney flip-flops.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Ya, huge. One has bombed 6 nations in less than 4 years. The other wants to bomb possibly 8 nations in 4 years.

Neither one wanted to talk about private armies subsituting in Iraq, because they are both under the control of the MIC.

Each one trying to prove who is more loyal to Israel.

What happened to all the gold that Ghadaffi had?

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

No matter who wins, we'll be promoting our values in countries that happen to have a lot of oil.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Celente: Do you think we'd be in Iraq if their number one export was broccoli? haha

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

why does it matter that obama occasionally bombs another country? The policy is very similiar to clinton and isn't breaking with precedent.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

It matters because innocent people are being killed and maimed.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

exactly why it matters

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Who told you that?

Do you support killing al Qaeda & Taliban extremists who have killed upwards of 40k innocent Muslims in Pakistan?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

You'd have to read something other than Obama re-election materials to know that of course. Greenwald has some good info.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths

These wars of aggression are about greed, not about protecting anyone.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Someone should stop the slaughter of innocents by the religious extremists.

We are responsible for much of the strife in the world. We should bethe ones to stop them.

And I haven't read one piece of Obama campaign material. I have read thegaurdian, & Greenwald. Still I know that innocent people must be protected, and that we should be the ones to do it.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

2 years ago we drone bombed Pakistan 120 (peak), Last about 68, this year closer to 35.

So we are reducing to Zero. That is real progress. The Bombing have killed Maybe 3500 people. Mostly extremists who have killed thousands upon thousands of innocent Muslims & Americans.

Very few innocent people have been killed by our bombs. It's horrible when innocent people die in military actions. That is a big reason I'm against them. And why I support the reductions to zero.

Just so you get a little truth about this important issue (I've argued with these liars many times)

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Occasionally? We are talking about 100's of attacks on 6 nations in 3 years. Nearly 300 in Pakistan alone, a natino we arent even in a real war with. We are talking about sending marines into Guatemala, Uganda, Libya, Yemen and Turkey.

During the VP debate we bombed Pakistan again, killing over a dozen people and injuring dozens more. A person a

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

why should policy operate on your standards and not the current method?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

That depends on what you think the function of government is. If they are supposed to be corporate raiders, then fine, keep going.

Smedlye Butler, the most decorated Marine ever... "War is a racket".. How about 30% of homeless being veterans?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2164) 1 year ago

Pres Obama is ending wars, winding down our killings of Muslims towards zero which is what I want. No troops in Iraq, relatively speaking, No "private armies"! are you daft? Bush is the one who used the red state private armies. You sound like an idiot. 6 nations in 4 years what the fuck does that mean.? Stop fuckin whining, we are slowly ending all the repuglican military adventures. To say anything else is dishonest and nit picking.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Lets see we are bombing or have bombed pakistan, yemen, libya, afghanistan, and the military withdrawel from iraq was on the deadline bush set. I'm not sure about the sixth country.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

There are thousands of private contractors in Iraq, many of whom are security who are simply doing what the army was doing. This is from military guys, not myself.

Attacking Libya, and bombing the hell out of Yemen, are not winding them down. He also increased troop levels inAfghanistan and signed a deal with them to provide security until 2024.

You call it nit picking, I call it holding the commander in chief responsible for continuing the killing FOUR YEARS LATER.

You do realize we just started moving Marines into Turkey right?

You should pay attentino to what is going on and judge it objectively instead of simply wanting to feel good.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2164) 1 year ago

You're a fucking moron. Iraq is over! No troops to speak of there or Libya. You don't know what you are talkin about. We are ending the Afghan war. Stop whining about it. Yemen??? Fuckin Yemen??? We are killing the enemies of peace! Minor number of dead. I want the end of war but I do want to kill the enemies of peace. Turkey?? STFU. Still killing 4 years later. Is that a joke? What the fuck did you think? killing would end? Your moronic naivete is not a valid position of debate. Grow up. The world is dangerous we will be killing for a long time. Pres Obama didn't create the concept of killing and he cannot, will not, and never said he would end it. Whiny little naive moron.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Wow, you are quite the peace activist. You realize there are plenty of countries that arent participating in this takeover of the middle east right, and they are doing just fine?

Private mercenaries still in Iraq- still occupying. You lie.

There are troops in Libya and Yemen- occupation well underway- you lie again. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-notifies-congress-of-troops-deployed-to-libya-and-yemen/

Afghanistan is still a fuckin mess, and he wont be leaving anytime soon http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/world/asia/afghan-insider-attacks-on-wests-forces-corrode-trust.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Ya, Turkey, the country that is just north of Syria: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/20/267730/us-steps-up-turkey-military-intl-ties/

This was never about peace, its about taking over the middle east and controlling resources. I bet you voted for Bush didnt you?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Nailed it!

3 pointer! He shoots he scores!

Also 2 of the additional potential countries to bomb are countries like Iran, which Obama has said he would take military action if demands are not met or if Israel gets in a war with them, which Romney agreed. And Syria.... they're not really sure on Syria yet. But apparently now it's spilling over to Lebanon and further destabilizing Lebanon.

It's almost like it was all planned years ago. Like it's a list of 7 countries to take out or instill regime change. Who is General Wesley Clark?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

haha.... its almost ike this entire system is centrally planned, eh?