Romney's policy-shift on Mid East

Haven't Americans had enough of being involved in land wars in the Mid-east yet???

He said he would put Iran "on notice" over its nuclear plans, and called for arms to go to Syrian rebels.

how much longer do you want to be sending your sons and daughters to fight for oil???

(I did a search for Romney Mid-east policy & was surprised when nothing came up linked to this!!)

how much longer do you want to be sending your sons and daughters to fight for oil???

As long as greed and manipulation lives.

BTW , It is just an attempt of attention shift from BBC.

Originally posted by mideast
[BTW , It is just an attempt of attention shift from BBC.

What does that even mean??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Unfortunately, I feel if Obama wins, he will do the same thing.





S&F

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Haven't Americans had enough of being involved in land wars in the Mid-east yet???

He said he would put Iran "on notice" over its nuclear plans, and called for arms to go to Syrian rebels.

how much longer do you want to be sending your sons and daughters to fight for oil???

(I did a search for Romney Mid-east policy & was surprised when nothing came up linked to this!!)

Romney wants to arm the rebels in Syria who have WESTERN Ideals. That is not sending sons and daughters to fight. That is what Obama should have been doing all along, instead we armed the Brotherhood. Great!

As far as Iran, Obama has said since 2008 he will go to war with them, Liberals just only hear what they want. Iran recently said they were going to enrich to 60% to build nuclear submarines. Completely peaceful Iran, imagine that.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Western Ideals?? It's Al Qaeda!!! What are you talking about? The " rebels" are flying the Al Qaeda flag!

What Romney wants to do in Syria is the same thing Obama has done in Libya. The Libyan "rebels" were also flying the same Al Qaeda flag. There is even an interview where the field commander of the "rebels" says that these "rebels" are the same people who fought US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would also be the same "rebels" who killed the US Ambassador.

Libyan rebels fought US troops- London Telegraph

and make no mistake about it, the Libyan "rebels" are the same "rebels" we see in Syria!

Libyan rebels move onto Syria- CNN

But I am sure Al Qaeda has "Western Ideals". If what you say is accurate, what the hell are we doing in Afghanistan again? Who are we fighting in the "War on Terror" again?

Romney can't have a policy shift. He's a private citizen. Second, he'll do anything for a buck, anything at all. IMO it's pretty obvious why he sides with Israel. Netanyahu is one of his business partners. That's not a good way to make a "policy" decision no matter how you cut it.

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Western Ideals?? It's Al Qaeda!!! What are you talking about? The " rebels" are flying the Al Qaeda flag!

What Romney wants to do in Syria is the same thing Obama has done in Libya. The Libyan "rebels" were also flying the same Al Qaeda flag. There is even an interview where the field commander of the "rebels" says that these "rebels" are the same people who fought US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would also be the same "rebels" who killed the US Ambassador.

Libyan rebels fought US troops- London Telegraph

and make no mistake about it, the Libyan "rebels" are the same "rebels" we see in Syria!

Libyan rebels move onto Syria- CNN

But I am sure Al Qaeda has "Western Ideals". If what you say is accurate, what the hell are we doing in Afghanistan again? Who are we fighting in the "War on Terror" again?

So if 1 group of rebels is bad EVERY group is? Good logic! I hope you see why your comment is stupid, if not, look harder.

Romney did not say arm EVERY group. He said arm the groups that DO have Western ideals and bring THEM to power, so that the groups you talk about do NOT get power. Obama allowed any old group to gain power, and look where that got us. I am sorry you can't see Romney is better at this than Obama is.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Romney can't have a policy shift. He's a private citizen. Second, he'll do anything for a buck, anything at all. IMO it's pretty obvious why he sides with Israel. Netanyahu is one of his business partners. That's not a good way to make a "policy" decision no matter how you cut it.

I think you misunderstood. Romney is not shifting his stance on policy, Romney is saying America needs a policy shift, and that if elected he will bring one. Romney's position has been the same the whole time, and never waivered on this issue.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


You obviously did not read the links I provided for you. Try that before judging my logic.

FACT: Al Qaeda fighters fought US troops.

FACT: Al Qaeda fights who fought those US troops were armed by the US in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi

FACT: Those same Al Qaeda fighters used in Libya have now moved on to Syria.

FACT: The Rebels in both Syria and Libya are flying the Al Qaeda flag

What makes you think Romney is any position to know who is on what side in Syria? Do you even realize these same "rebels" used in Libya are the same "Rebels" we armed who killed a US Ambassador? Is that your idea of "Western Ideals"? Who is using the warped logic now?

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Unfortunately, I feel if Obama wins, he will do the same thing.

S&F

So Obama is waiting until he could potentially be ousted to enact this hidden agenda

Ohhh

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You obviously did not read the links I provided for you. Try that before judging my logic.

FACT: Al Qaeda fighters fought US troops.

FACT: Al Qaeda fights who fought those US troops were armed by the US in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi

FACT: Those same Al Qaeda fighters used in Libya have now moved on to Syria.

FACT: The Rebels in both Syria and Libya are flying the Al Qaeda flag

What makes you think Romney is any position to know who is on what side in Syria? Do you even realize these same "rebels" used in Libya are the same "Rebels" we armed who killed a US Ambassador? Is that your idea of "Western Ideals"? Who is using the warped logic now?

Thank you for proving my point. Obama handed weapons out like Halloween candy. Romney wants to be more discerning with who gets them. You do realize the more you talk the more you prove me right don't you? So keep talking

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Unfortunately, I feel if Obama wins, he will do the same thing.

S&F

So Obama is waiting until he could potentially be ousted to enact this hidden agenda

Ohhh

Yes because no President has ever waited until after re-election to do something that is unpopular.

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space. This is my last election, and after my election, I have more flexibility."

I remember one sitting President saying that when he thought the mics were off. Who was that again?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


You are missing my whole point which is, Romney wants to make the same mistake that Obama made.

They do not know who these people are, or they do and are doing it anyway.

Once those weapons are in the hands of whomever they go to, they can then go to anyone else helping that "side".

reply to post by MrWendal


You claim it is 100% impossible to know. That is your opinion and not a fact. If it is 100% impossible to figure out who they are then how do you know they are Al-Qaeda? The fact you made that statement means it IS possible to tell, thus negating your argument in its entirety.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Are you suggesting once those weapons leave the hands of the US and are placed in the hands of the rebels, you know where they go after that?

And it is a fact that Al Qaeda fighters from Libya are now involved and fighting with rebels in Syria. Does that mean ALL rebels in Syria are Al Qaeda? No it does not, but we know for a fact they are there.

Much like the other thread you and I are involved in, you clearly have no interest in a true discussion. You just want to prove yourself to be right and everyone else is wrong by default. Your lack of logic amuses me.

It appears I am not the only one question Romney's ideas on Syria.

Just as importantly, the Libyan rebels were assisted with virtually no one in the administration or in Congress demanding to know who these people were that we were arming and propping up. No one seemed to understand that in toppling Libya's dictatorship, we were leaving in its wake an unformed, unorganized government without a centralized structure, one that would have a difficult time keeping order among the more than 100 tribes that make up Libya.

This "act first, think later" foreign policy has real consequences. We've seen our embassies and consulates stormed in more than one country. Our diplomats and security team were killed. Our flag is being burned, our country mocked.

The proper response to this would be to step back and think of whether we really need to be involved in these countries in the way we have been. Instead, both parties rush headlong into more places they don't understand, exemplified Monday by Romney urging action to arm Syrian rebels and topple President Bashar al-Assad.

But just who are these rebels? What will they do when in power? Is this really in our vital national interest?

Source with video

Apparently Rand Paul has decided to disagree with Romney on this issue even though he will continue to support and even campaign for the GOP Candidate.

reply to post by MrWendal


I already addressed the issue Rand Paul brought up. Why do you keep bringing up the same idea?

reply to post by MrWendal


Good points. If I were you, I'd just ignore people when they show a clear lack of logic.

Both the rebels fighting in Libya armed by the Obama administration, and the Syrian rebels AKA the Free Syrian Army have been charged with human rights violations by international groups and neither shows an interest for "western ideals". They have intermingled with al-Qaeda and other extremist groups and I cannot see the logic behind Obamney's decision(s) to arm these groups.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

How did arming and training the Afghani rebels and helping to create al-Qaeda and the Taliban work out for the US?

Originally posted by PatriotGames2
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Good points. If I were you, I'd just ignore people when they show a clear lack of logic.

Both the rebels fighting in Libya armed by the Obama administration, and the Syrian rebels AKA the Free Syrian Army have been charged with human rights violations by international groups and neither shows an interest for "western ideals". They have intermingled with al-Qaeda and other extremist groups and I cannot see the logic behind Obamney's decision(s) to arm these groups.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

How did arming and training the Afghani rebels and helping to create al-Qaeda and the Taliban work out for the US?

Romney agrees with you. So I am not sure what your point is. Romney wants to ONLY arm certain rebel groups that have proven they share western ideals. How does that relate to what Obama did?