• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why Obama and Romney are Both Wrong

A

Anonymous

Guest
Gary Johnson



Libya, Afghanistan and the Middle East -- Why Obama and Romney are Both Wrong



Foreign policy is supposed to make us safer, not get Americans killed and bankrupt us. Yet, even as we mourn the loss of four Americans in Libya and watch the Middle East ignite with anti-American fervor, our leaders don't get it.



In one corner, we have the U.S. apologists warning that -- after the murders in Libya and the attack on our embassy in Cairo -- we must be careful not to say or do anything that might hurt someone's feelings. In the other corner, we have the chest-thumpers demanding that we find somebody to shoot -- and shoot them.



I have a better idea: Stop trying to manipulate and manage history on the other side of the globe and then being shocked when things don't turn out the way we wanted. As far as what we do right now in response to the tragic events of this week, it's actually pretty simple. Get our folks out of places they don't need to be -- and out of harm's way -- and cut off every dime of U.S. tax dollars we are sending to clearly ungrateful regimes.


Let's review American foreign policy during the Bush-Obama years. Just imagine for a minute that, in 2002, President Bush granted Iran's Ayatollah one wish above all others. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Supreme Leader would have said, "Can you please kill Saddam Hussein and make sure our mortal enemy Iraq can no longer threaten us. Then, we can get about our goals of destroying Israel, building a nuke and becoming a legitimate thorn in the side of the Western infidels."



Well...



And then there are Afghanistan and Pakistan. After 9/11, going after Bin Laden and al Qaeda was exactly the right thing to do. We were attacked and we attacked back. We must defend ourselves, and we absolutely must have a strong defense. But within a few months, our troops had scattered al Qaeda like ants from a kicked anthill, and Bin Laden had set up housekeeping in Pakistan. Al Qaeda left, but we stayed -- and kept fighting a war that was, in terms of our immediate interests, over. And we're still fighting it today, ignoring the lessons learned at great cost by the Soviet Union and the British Empire.



While we're fighting a war we don't need to fight in Afghanistan, we're pumping billions of dollars into the coffers of our new best friend Pakistan -- making them the second largest recipient of our borrowed and printed dollars on the globe. When we finally found and killed Bin Laden, was anyone surprised that we found him -- you got it -- in Pakistan? And our new best U.S.-financed friends are treating the good Pakistanis who helped us find him like criminals.



Fast forward to Libya. Make no mistake, Muammar Gaddafi was a despicable human being and no reasonable person mourns his demise. But toppling dictators we don't like has not worked out very well for us. We launched hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of missiles to kill the guy, and what do we get? A Libya that cannot even keep its benefactors safe -- and may not even be trying very hard. Somebody needs to ask, and I will be that somebody: As despicable as he was, would our ambassador and three other dedicated public servants have been killed in a Gaddafi-controlled Libya? Are we safer today after launching all those missiles and killing Gaddafi? Clearly not.



In Egypt and the other blossoms of the Arab Spring, is America any safer or our interests any better served as the result of the billions of dollars we are giving away? Again, clearly not.



Oh, and there is one other matter. We're broke. We are borrowing or printing 43 cents of every one of the more than $4 billion a year we are sending to Pakistan, Libya and Egypt. And all those missiles we launched, and the war in Afghanistan are likewise being put on the national credit card. Why are we building roads, bridges, hospitals and schools half a world away on borrowed money? Don't we have those same needs here at home?



It's time to tell and face the truth: The Bush-Obama-and-now-Romney interventionist approach to foreign policy is getting Americans killed and contributing to the bankruptcy of our nation without clear sight of our national interests. By what measure is that good policy?


There is finally one candidate that recognizes you can't turn folks that lived under Mullahs, Tribal Chiefs, Dictators for hundreds of years into democracy followers in one fell swoop-- and that what Al Quaeda and the terrorists would love to see is for us to follow under McCains "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb" -invade another country convention speach- and allow the Republicans sellout to the lobbyiests of the military/industrial comlex's warmongering...
Old grey haired men- who stuff their pockets off sending our kids and grandkids off to war..... Too long a history of this...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Gary Johnson



Libya, Afghanistan and the Middle East -- Why Obama and Romney are Both Wrong



Foreign policy is supposed to make us safer, not get Americans killed and bankrupt us. Yet, even as we mourn the loss of four Americans in Libya and watch the Middle East ignite with anti-American fervor, our leaders don't get it.



In one corner, we have the U.S. apologists warning that -- after the murders in Libya and the attack on our embassy in Cairo -- we must be careful not to say or do anything that might hurt someone's feelings. In the other corner, we have the chest-thumpers demanding that we find somebody to shoot -- and shoot them.



I have a better idea: Stop trying to manipulate and manage history on the other side of the globe and then being shocked when things don't turn out the way we wanted. As far as what we do right now in response to the tragic events of this week, it's actually pretty simple. Get our folks out of places they don't need to be -- and out of harm's way -- and cut off every dime of U.S. tax dollars we are sending to clearly ungrateful regimes.


Let's review American foreign policy during the Bush-Obama years. Just imagine for a minute that, in 2002, President Bush granted Iran's Ayatollah one wish above all others. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Supreme Leader would have said, "Can you please kill Saddam Hussein and make sure our mortal enemy Iraq can no longer threaten us. Then, we can get about our goals of destroying Israel, building a nuke and becoming a legitimate thorn in the side of the Western infidels."



Well...



And then there are Afghanistan and Pakistan. After 9/11, going after Bin Laden and al Qaeda was exactly the right thing to do. We were attacked and we attacked back. We must defend ourselves, and we absolutely must have a strong defense. But within a few months, our troops had scattered al Qaeda like ants from a kicked anthill, and Bin Laden had set up housekeeping in Pakistan. Al Qaeda left, but we stayed -- and kept fighting a war that was, in terms of our immediate interests, over. And we're still fighting it today, ignoring the lessons learned at great cost by the Soviet Union and the British Empire.



While we're fighting a war we don't need to fight in Afghanistan, we're pumping billions of dollars into the coffers of our new best friend Pakistan -- making them the second largest recipient of our borrowed and printed dollars on the globe. When we finally found and killed Bin Laden, was anyone surprised that we found him -- you got it -- in Pakistan? And our new best U.S.-financed friends are treating the good Pakistanis who helped us find him like criminals.



Fast forward to Libya. Make no mistake, Muammar Gaddafi was a despicable human being and no reasonable person mourns his demise. But toppling dictators we don't like has not worked out very well for us. We launched hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of missiles to kill the guy, and what do we get? A Libya that cannot even keep its benefactors safe -- and may not even be trying very hard. Somebody needs to ask, and I will be that somebody: As despicable as he was, would our ambassador and three other dedicated public servants have been killed in a Gaddafi-controlled Libya? Are we safer today after launching all those missiles and killing Gaddafi? Clearly not.



In Egypt and the other blossoms of the Arab Spring, is America any safer or our interests any better served as the result of the billions of dollars we are giving away? Again, clearly not.



Oh, and there is one other matter. We're broke. We are borrowing or printing 43 cents of every one of the more than $4 billion a year we are sending to Pakistan, Libya and Egypt. And all those missiles we launched, and the war in Afghanistan are likewise being put on the national credit card. Why are we building roads, bridges, hospitals and schools half a world away on borrowed money? Don't we have those same needs here at home?



It's time to tell and face the truth: The Bush-Obama-and-now-Romney interventionist approach to foreign policy is getting Americans killed and contributing to the bankruptcy of our nation without clear sight of our national interests. By what measure is that good policy?


There is finally one candidate that recognizes you can't turn folks that lived under Mullahs, Tribal Chiefs, Dictators for hundreds of years into democracy followers in one fell swoop-- and that what Al Quaeda and the terrorists would love to see is for us to follow under McCains "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb" -invade another country convention speach- and allow the Republicans sellout to the lobbyiests of the military/industrial comlex's warmongering...
Old grey haired men- who stuff their pockets off sending our kids and grandkids off to war..... Too long a history of this...

But Obama, he's still okay by your standards, right?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
There is finally one candidate that recognizes you can't turn folks that lived under Mullahs, Tribal Chiefs, Dictators for hundreds of years into democracy followers in one fell swoop-- and that what Al Quaeda and the terrorists would love to see is for us to follow under McCains "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb" -invade another country convention speach- and allow the Republicans sellout to the lobbyiests of the military/industrial comlex's warmongering...
Old grey haired men- who stuff their pockets off sending our kids and grandkids off to war..... Too long a history of this...


Wow where do I start to comment about your post first you can't spend the last four years defending Obama's every move and then post something like this and think you are not going to get called out

Second, did I miss something here as I through it was a middle age black guy that you Oldtimer have been defending for the last 4 years that was sending people kids and grandkids off to war. :?

Third, when did a speech from a guy that is not running for president have anything to do with anyone being sent off to war?
BTW Oldtimer I think McCain would have been a better person to judge when to send troops in as he spent time in the military unlike your Harvard Grad/ community organizer inexperience in anything, incompetent in everything Obama.

ANd please don't talk about WARMONGERS when your hero Obama the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER has a KILL LIST that contains the names of AMERICAN citizens he has targeted. And when your hero Obama entered into a war in Libya and Egypt without the approval of the US Congress to remove their dictators, At least Bush got approval before he went to war to take out terrorists that attacked the US on US soil. AND PLEASE do not bring up Iraq as that war was brought on by the lieing the Dems, INCLUDING BOTH CLINTONS, did about Saddam having WMD and his intentions of using them. If Bush had not gone after him and he used them the Dems would have lead the parade to hang Bush but since there was no big stash of WMD like the DEMS CLAIMED, The Dems claim Bush lied about Saddam having WMD and he should not have gone into Iraq.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
It's hard to know at this point if Romney will be an interventionist like this guy describes or not.

Heck, it's hard to know if Johnson would be an interventionist just like bush/obama, or not.

Might as well vote for Romney OT.
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
It's hard to know at this point if Romney will be an interventionist like this guy describes or not.

Heck, it's hard to know if Johnson would be an interventionist just like bush/obama, or not.

Might as well vote for Romney OT.

Johnson and Oldtimer on his behalf can claim anything he wants as the chances anyone will ever have to hold him accountable for his campaign claims is the same chance a snow ball has in you know where.
Anyone voting for Johnson might as well save the gas and not bother going to vote. Johnson isn't even campaigning to be taken serious as if he was there would be at least one ad in the last 6 months on air telling people who he is. :roll:
 
Top