Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nor can you change it by continuing and worsening the same policies...sounds like a great opportunity to try something a little different.
I can't blame you for not seeing a change in policies. Most people seem to fall into that same trap... it is an easy one. Recall my first response to this thread:
Obama: Pragmatic
Romney: Ideological
Johnson: Unrealistic
Obama will not shy away from reacting to a nuisance. Romney would like to see more nuisance. And Johnson assumes that there will never be a nuisance because we suddenly stopped what we started decades ago.
There is no easy way out to this mess we have created for a long time. It will take time, and increased respect of people even in countries which are at odds with us. And it is equally important to realize that isolationism will not work. It is unrealistic, in a world that has societies inter-twined and often at odds with each other.
Agreed that Romney is no winner on foreign policy, but again, he is no different than Obama.
His reckless foot-in-mouth rhetoric on foreign matters says different. His talk about increasing military spending by $2 TRILLION when the military doesn't even need it, has SAID they don't need it, says different. And his foreign policy advisory team (you know, the neo-con Bush think tank that became so infamous a few years ago) roster says different.
I can't blame you for not seeing a change in policies. Most people seem to fall into that same trap... it is an easy one. Recall my first response to this thread:
Obama: Pragmatic
Romney: Ideological
Johnson: Unrealistic
Obama will not shy away from reacting to a nuisance. Romney would like to see more nuisance. And Johnson assumes that there will never be a nuisance because we suddenly stopped what we started decades ago.
There is no easy way out to this mess we have created for a long time. It will take time, and increased respect of people even in countries which are at odds with us. And it is equally important to realize that isolationism will not work. It is unrealistic, in a world that has societies inter-twined and often at odds with each other.
The only thing I agree with you on is that there is no easy way out, but the way I see it Obama and Romney still have their foot on the gas, maybe Romney is pressing harder, but Obama still has his on the gas as well. Johnson is the only one willing to at least take his foot off the gas.
BTW...no idea why you bring up isolationism, last I checked Kim Jong Il was dead and had no plans for running for POTUS in 2012.
His reckless foot-in-mouth rhetoric on foreign matters says different. His talk about increasing military spending by $2 TRILLION when the military doesn't even need it, has SAID they don't need it, says different. And his foreign policy advisory team (you know, the neo-con Bush think tank that became so infamous a few years ago) roster says different.
You can keep detracting from Romney all you want, but ignoring that chart I posted about Obama doesn't help your case. Its obvious that they are both a negative on foreign policy.
And it is equally important to realize that isolationism will not work.
True, if we are using the REAL idea of what isolationism is- divorcing ourselves politically, rhetorically, economically, and otherwise from foreign entanglements. Isolationism is NOT engaging politically and rhetorically and economically in foreign matters while witholding military involvment as a LAST resort and choosing where possible to let foreign nations handle their own security.
Sometimes the notion of removing US troops from active involvement in foreign entanglements is MISTAKEN for isolationism. Engaging politically or economically by definition makes it not isolationism.
You can keep detracting from Romney all you want, but ignoring that chart I posted about Obama doesn't help your case. Its obvious that they are both a negative on foreign policy.
Yet it's obvious that they are distinctly different on foreign policy. If I have to choose between a stomach ache and stomach cancer, give me the stomach ache. Saying that both are bad things doesn't change the fact that a stomach ache is vastly different from stomach cancer. Saying that both are negatives on foreign policy doesnt change the fact that Romney = W Bush Part II policy is far worse than Obama policy.
Yet it's obvious that they are distinctly different on foreign policy. If I have to choose between a stomach ache and stomach cancer, give me the stomach ache. Saying that both are bad things doesn't change the fact that a stomach ache is vastly different from stomach cancer. Saying that both are negatives on foreign policy doesnt change the fact that Romney = W Bush Part II policy is far worse than Obama policy.
Well, your "stomach ache" has still resulted in the death of Americans, and a continued diminishing of our overall safety, so I'm not really going to buy into that comparison.
The only thing I agree with you on is that there is no easy way out, but the way I see it Obama and Romney still have their foot on the gas, maybe Romney is pressing harder, but Obama still has his on the gas as well. Johnson is the only one willing to at least take his foot off the gas.
Only if Johnson were talking about simply taking the foot off the gas, he would be a bit more realistic. Taking foot off the gas doesn't stop the vehicle immediately... that would be unrealistic.
Quote:
BTW...no idea why you bring up isolationism, last I checked Kim Jong Il was dead and had no plans for running for POTUS in 2012.
It is not that isolationism was born and died with Kim Jong Il.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay
True, if we are using the REAL idea of what isolationism is- divorcing ourselves politically, rhetorically, economically, and otherwise from foreign entanglements. Isolationism is NOT engaging politically and rhetorically and economically in foreign matters while witholding military involvment as a LAST resort and choosing where possible to let foreign nations handle their own security.
Sometimes the notion of removing US troops from active involvement in foreign entanglements is MISTAKEN for isolationism. Engaging politically or economically by definition makes it not isolationism.
Not in my case. I am very much for closing offshore accounts for our military industrial complex AKA military bases. But, one can't simply assume that it can be done within a day, or a year or even couple of terms of a Presidency.
The idea of isolationism I project has nothing to do with that, but to assume an idealistic world where everybody plays fairly. Diplomatic efforts, recognizing the world as a community, is necessary, as opposed to an us versus them mentality, or simply sticking the head in the sand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
