Obama's foreign policy

Does this president know what the hell he's doing when it comes to foreign policy?

1.  U.S. WARNED OF EMBASSY ATTACK BUT DID NOTHING

2.  U.S. ‘Not Setting Deadlines’ for Iran, Clinton Says

3.  White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama
(Instead Obama chooses to go on Letterman)

4.  Democrats: Still Support U.S. Aid to Egypt
LVL 3
EricLynnWrightAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

 
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
As usual, you are trying to take things out of context.  I would think they have warnings about attacks on embassies around the world Every Day.  

The only thing left to do the day after a deadline is go to war.  Are you volunteering to be in the first wave to land on the shores of Iran?  

Netanyahou likes to make noise like a pissy girlfriend.  

Why wouldn't we still support Egypt?  We're going to change our policies because of a small band of idiots?
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by ConnectWise

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
DaveBaldwin hit the nails all right on the head

>>1.  U.S. WARNED OF EMBASSY ATTACK BUT DID NOTHING

The US probably gets ton of warnings at every possible place. There is no way to know which wackos are actually going to go through with whatever threat they are making.

>>2.  U.S. ‘Not Setting Deadlines’ for Iran, Clinton Says

What kind of redline would you like set? How do you think it should be? Romney never seems to have a plan either but just says Obama's plan is wrong.

>>3.  White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama

From what I have read as well I hear this guy is somewhat of a prima-donna type. It was scheduling apparently (which is lame) but honestly the bending over backwards for Israel really gets old after a while. He met with the Secretary of State who is actually in charge of foreign relations. Not like they sent him Biden or anything.

>>(Instead Obama chooses to go on Letterman)

Like every other president re-running in history didn't spend these months campaigning like crazy.

>>4.  Democrats: Still Support U.S. Aid to Egypt

I don't like how much money we give to foreign countries either, but Dave is right again that a group is not representative of the country.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>Netanyahou likes to make noise like a pissy girlfriend.  

I guess I may too if I had a regional country developing nukes and promising to wipe you off the face of the earth.



>>The US probably gets ton of warnings at every possible place. There is no way to know which wackos are actually going to go through with whatever threat they are making.

Tell that to Christopher Stevens' family.


>>Like every other president re-running in history

I can't name any.



>>I don't like how much money we give to foreign countries either, but Dave is right again that a group is not representative of the country.

The host country is responsible for the security.



>>The only thing left to do the day after a deadline is go to war.  

You could follow Britain and France's actions before WWII.  Appeasing Hitler seemed to work, did it not?
0
Get expert help—faster!

Need expert help—fast? Use the Help Bell for personalized assistance getting answers to your important questions.

 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>Tell that to Christopher Stevens' family.

So they should react will full effect to every warning they get on every embassy in the world and all government buildings? Be realistic.

>>I can't name any.

W Bush
Clinton
H Bush
Reagan

on and on. They were all campaigning before their re-election came up.

>>The host country is responsible for the security.

So we were responsible for Timothy McVeigh

>>Appeasing Hitler seemed to work, did it not?

That was a military leader actively conquering foreign lands. Also the defeat of Hitler removed him from power and ended the Nazi regime. The same wont happen in Iran. They will continue to have the same government and be building another Nuke in a few years. What is the endgame here?
0
 
beetosCommented:
1.  According to senior diplomatic sources...

A foreign news outlet, not revealing how it knows this.


2. Conservatives have been beating the drums for war with Iran for years.  Despite not going to war, Isreal is still there.  It's no surprise that in the run up to elections, Bibi is trying to force our hand and Republicans are all to eager to play along.  Also, Isreal won't abide by the same Nuclear inspections it wants for Iran.  

3.  Again, from an "Isreali official who refused be identified." no official complaints of this.  No meeting between Bibi and Obama was even requested:

https://en.twitter.com/lrozen/status/245672437772079104

Further, Obama and Bibi will be in NY on different days, so your assertion that he's going on Letterman instead of meeting with him is misleading, as is typical of your accusations.

4.  Of course they do.   It's just a protest and will pass.

Ask yourself this Eric, do you feel safer today than you did 4 years ago?
0
 
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
See Eric, the people attacking the embassies just want to blame someone, kind of like you do.  The difference is (so far) that they have guns, grenades, rockets, and Molotov cocktails and don't care who they hurt.  They are a minority in their countries.  They do need to be dealt with and it should be by their own countrymen.

Finding fault does not by itself ever make anything better.  It may make you think you are superior.
0
 
beetosCommented:
I've noticed a trend with your questions Eric, they seem to follow the Republican party talking points word for word.

Romney's weak on foreign policy, and Obama is seen as handling things well;  we're out of Iraq, going to be leaving Afghanistan, the ridiculous terror threat level color chart is no more, and we aren't living in fear of attacks on the home land like we were with Bush.     I clearly remember "Serious, credible threat" warnings just prior to the election when Bush was running for his second term.

Now the Republican strategy is to paint Obama as weak on terrorism, despite how many terrorists he's killed in numerous countries.   Accusing him of apologizing when he's done no such thing.   Accusing him of weakness because an embassy in Egypt put out a most reasonable statement prior to the escalation of violence.  

It's preposterous, yet typical of the alternate reality the Republican party keeps foisting upon us.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
Say all you want about Obama's lack of experience, when it comes to foreign affairs, Romney has absolutely the same amount Obama had 4 years ago. None.

Romney has been quick to paint all of Obama's moves in this current crisis as wrong, but has given no indication at all about how he would handle the situation. \

Please point out where I might be mistaken here.
0
 
beetosCommented:
One note about how Romney handled this:

Romney attacked Obama for apologizing about the film to the rioters.   That never happened.  

The embassy, NOT OBAMA, issued a statement BEFORE the riots.   The statement was not an apology, just an affirmation that we believe in free speech and freedom of and respect for religion.    

If Romney can't even see what's going on in his own country, what chance does he have at foreign policy?   Aside from keeping his money in foreign countries of course.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>The statement was not an apology, just an affirmation that we believe in free speech and freedom of and respect for religion.

I wouldn't say the statement said anything about free speech. It was about our intolerance for religious bigotry and it apologized for any Muslim offense. In my opinion, it was overly apologetic for what they did.

It however also did not at all come from Obama and Obama's statement was spot on with the first line being how the attacks were wrong.

Romney jumped right on the political offensive releasing his blasting statement at about 10:00PM on September 11th, but put an embargo until 12:01 so it would be out on September 12th.

In other words, "Screw the solidarity of Patriot Day, I want to attack Obama now...but don't tell anyone I'm doing it until tomorrow." Very sleazy move and I didn't like it.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
FactCheck.org : Romney Gets It Backward : http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-gets-it-backward/

Apology Tour

Romney’s claims about the administration “apologizing for American values” fits an ongoing theme of his campaign: accusing Obama of beginning his presidency on an “apology tour” in foreign countries. In fact, that meme informed the title of Romney’s book “No Apology.”

We looked into the Obama speeches that Romney cited as evidence and concluded that nowhere did we see that the president “apologized” for America. In some speeches, Obama was drawing a distinction between his policies and those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. In other instances, Obama appeared to be employing a bit of diplomacy, criticizing past actions of both the U.S. and the host nation, and calling for the two sides to move forward.

Then, as now, Romney’s claim of Obama “apologies” falls flat.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
Mitt Romney and the Fantasy Budget - Businessweek : http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-13/mitt-romney-and-the-fantasy-budget#r=shared
If elected president, Mitt Romney has promised he will create 12 million jobs, replace Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, slash corporate tax rates, preserve the Bush income tax cuts, and then cut an additional 20 percent to boot. And, oh yes—balance the budget. How does Romney propose to pull off this feat of budgetary magic? He isn’t saying.
What’s missing are the details about where he’ll lead the country and how he’ll do it.”
My biggest problem with voting for Romney.
0
 
TlingitCommented:
Nice to see liberals supporting Obama on this.

This crisis, and believe me, this is a crisis, is worse than Jimmy Carter.

Lybia had very little if no protection in form of security.  This happened on 9/11.  We should have beefed up our security around these embassies but we didn't.

Isreal is on the verge of war with Iran.  Isreal is surrounded by enemies.  There only ally is the U.S. and President Obama refuses to meet with Isreal's PM.  He has no time, but he has time to go on David Letterman.  This President is a pathetic leader.

The President supported the Arab Spring and these are the fruits of it.  These protests are just the beginning.

Romney says a hard statement about what was going on and all the news can do is concentrate on the timeliness of his statement while ignoring what was going on around them.  The WH refuses to say that these protests are against the U.S. and the Obama administration, while at the same time they are killing Americans and attacking American soil and burning American flags.

The news media blame a movie but in reality these protests and riots had nothing to do with the movie but has everything to do with Obama's failed foreign policies.  Obama's presidency, from domestic to foreign policies, are a failure and a complete joke.

Obama doesn't even know if Egypt is an ally or not.  He first says they are not an ally and also not an enemy.  Then the State Dept says they are an ally.  Even Jimmy Carter comes out and says they are an ally.  What a complete joke!  He is the President of the United States and he doesn't know who is our ally and who is not!
0
 
beetosCommented:
I wouldn't say the statement said anything about free speech. It was about our intolerance for religious bigotry and it apologized for any Muslim offense. In my opinion, it was overly apologetic for what they did.

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

To me that's the embassy stating American values, free speech being inherent as noted in the last line.   It's not so much an apology as a condemnation of a film made by bigots with the explicit purpose of inciting religious animosity.   A sentiment I agree with, and I don't understand why anyone has a problem with this statement, even Obama although I believe that had there not been an attack in Syria or if this wasn't an election year, this statement would have largely been ignored.

Obama doesn't even know if Egypt is an ally or not.  He first says they are not an ally and also not an enemy.  Then the State Dept says they are an ally.  Even Jimmy Carter comes out and says they are an ally.  What a complete joke!  He is the President of the United States and he doesn't know who is our ally and who is not!


Conservatives are quick to accuse other countries of not protecting our interests, and perhaps rightly so in this case.  Wouldn't an ally have provided security in this case? Further, they accuse the Muslim Brotherhood of all kinds of things, and beating the drums of war with them.     With the recent overthrow of the government in Egypt, where do we stand?   Obama is right in his statement, as our relationship with the new powers in Egypt is evolving.

Jimmy Carter presided over a hostage crisis that lasted over a year.   This was a relatively minor terrorist attack in a war torn country, and protests elsewhere.  It does not compare to the hostage crisis in Iran.   More election year hot air!
0
 
TlingitCommented:
This was a relatively minor terrorist attack in a war torn country, and protests elsewhere.
Try explaining this to the Lybia ambassador and the three other Americans killed.  Also do you think if the US hadn't invaded Lybia this wouldn't have happened?

Jimmy Carter presided over a hostage crisis that lasted over a year.
Is that what liberals call it?  He presided over the hostage crisis.  Yes, indeed, he did.  Carter's foreign policy is just as bad as Obama's.  This is what happens when you have a person with no experience at all running our country.

In 1977 the US didn't back the Shah of Iran.
In 1979 the Shah was overthrown during the revolution and a new islamic power took its place.
Late 1979 hostages were taken by the new regime.  After a couple failed attemps by Jimmy Carter, which showed his foreign policy skills, the hostages were released in early 1981, 444 days later, shortly after President Reagan was inaugurated.
Does all this sound familiar?  Can anyone say Mubarak, Egypt?  We now have the Muslim Brotherhood controlling the vast majority of the government.  You have a spread of riots and protests against the US in 18 different cities both in the Middle East and northern Africa.  President Obama tried reaching out to the Muslim world by saying we are their friends but it hasn't worked.  Too many bowing I think.  Too much bowing now my little liberal friends.  I would bow but I have bad back.
0
 
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
Nice that you have found people to blame, Tlingit, it probably helps you sleep at night.  I guess you think that the US could be in charge of the entire world if the 'right' man was president.  That the 'right' man could tell the rest of the world what to do.  That the 'right' man could stop the riots any time he wanted.

Part of the 'freedom' that other countries want is freedom from the US.  Many people in the world do not want to be like us.  If it helps you, many of them want to blame the same people you do.  Maybe you should join them, you don't seem to like anything in the US.  At least I've never seen you write anything good about anything here.
0
 
beetosCommented:
Try explaining this to the Lybia ambassador and the three other Americans killed.  Also do you think if the US hadn't invaded Lybia this wouldn't have happened?


You're right, the deaths of these Americans is not insignificant, but in the part of the world where terrorist attacks are the norm this was relatively minor.   I wasn't aware we'd invaded Lybia - how many troops do we have there?  


Is that what liberals call it?  He presided over the hostage crisis.  

He was President (presided) during the hostage crisis - is that better?  

The rest of your argument is that we should support dictators of foreign nations just so things are better for us - is that it?   Then why do you support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.
>>We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

The problem here is the statement came out with the first thing mentioned being apologizing for the offense of their religion and ending with we reject the attacks.  No matter how you read it, that statements comes off as "sorry we hurt your feeling...and...we don't like your attacks".

The President's statement started with the objection to the attacks first and foremost and then about our free speech. It gave a completely different message.

>>This crisis, and believe me, this is a crisis, is worse than Jimmy Carter.

I agree this has the potential to be a worse situation depending on upcoming events but is not there yet.

>>Lybia had very little if no protection in form of security.  This happened on 9/11.  We should have beefed up our security around these embassies but we didn't.

Every embassy? Every potential threat? That's unrealistic.

>>Isreal is on the verge of war with Iran.  Isreal is surrounded by enemies.

I understand the importance of Israel in the region but I really am tired of all the bending over backwards crap that we always are supposed to do for them. Newt was even up during a debate claiming he is going to move their capital, like that is our job?

>>There only ally is the U.S. and President Obama refuses to meet with Isreal's PM.  He has no time, but he has time to go on David Letterman.

They were in NY on different days so it isn't like he just snubbed him. Obama is campaigning as every other Prez that was re-running. He met with the Secretary of State also so it isn't like we just sent some intern to meet him or something.

>>The President supported the Arab Spring and these are the fruits of it.

The Arab Spring was about people wanting freedom from oppressive rule. You think the President shouldn't have supported that?

>>Romney says a hard statement about what was going on and all the news can do is concentrate on the timeliness of his statement while ignoring what was going on around them.

He jumped on Obama in a political attack either before the bodies were cold, or before he had full information. Both options suck. He knew what he was doing was sleazy too because he made the statement at about 10:00PM but told the press not to run with it until 12:01 so it wouldn't be on 9/11.

>>The news media blame a movie but in reality these protests and riots had nothing to do with the movie but has everything to do with Obama's failed foreign policies.

And what are you basing this on? The movie came out and spread and pissed them off. Is Muslims freaking out and killing people because Mohammad is depicted or Islam is offensive really a stretch for them? It's stupid as hell but it isn't like a big surprise either.

>>Obama doesn't even know if Egypt is an ally or not.

Agree that was a stupid thing to say.
0
 
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
For those who think we're in control, the country of Sudan today Refused to allow a platoon of Marines to enter the country to protect our embassy there.  Does that mean we should invade Sudan to protect our embassy?

Clearly the movie is being used as an excuse to attack our embassies and other interests.  You should be asking yourself who is pushing for that to happen.  It is certainly not the governments where it is happening.  Almost all of them have made statements against the attacks.  There is already evidence that Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and others are taking advantage of the situation to stir things up.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
I'm in the theater right this second...2016 is about to start.
0
 
TlingitCommented:
Every embassy? Every potential threat? That's unrealistic.
This is where going to those intelligence briefings could have helped President Obama, but I know they would have cut into his golf swing.

For those who think we're in control, the country of Sudan today Refused to allow a platoon of Marines to enter the country to protect our embassy there.
Of course Sudan is going to refuse.  They know the U.S. has a weak President.  The whole world knows we have a weak President.  Any suggestions that President Obama makes they are going to deny.  He has zero pull with all of the world leaders because they perceive he is weak.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>This is where going to those intelligence briefings could have helped President Obama, but I know they would have cut into his golf swing.

I love when people get on a president that they just are choosing not to do the job so they can goof off. Bush, Obama or whoever. It's a ridiculous statement no matter who you are talking about. Congress 100% I could believe that but to think a Prez gets to do that is just to make a joke.

>>Of course Sudan is going to refuse.  They know the U.S. has a weak President.

So it goes like this then? "Ruler of Sudan, the American's want to protect their embassy." Ruler: "Oh don't worry. Just stop them. They have a weak President. If they had a stronger President I would just let them right in."

Really?
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
OBAMA:
THE DAY I'M INAUGURATED MUSLIM HOSTILITY WILL EASE

NASA Chief (under Obama):
"foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.


Obama:
Not a planned attack
Experts and Insiders:
'No doubt' attack 'preplanned'


Clearly another example of the Obama administration lying and getting caught.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>THE DAY I'M INAUGURATED MUSLIM HOSTILITY WILL EASE

OK, we get the fact that Obama promised the sky and the moon when he was running to get elected. He was going to cross the aisle and bring Congress together singing Kumbaya and the Muslims would love us and blah blah. Reality doesn't work out that way.

>>"foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Well that's just stupid and not a role for NASA at all. Apparently it was said that it was for collaboration with other scientists but what he said sounds nothing like that.

>>Obama:
>>Not a planned attack

So this wasn't Obama saying it, though you quoted it to him apparently.

Imagine a diplomat trying to keep relations and playing down the possibility that it was planned. It very well could be planned but honestly we wont know. Arab Spring spread after it started in one place, and this could be the same effect. Or they could have planned it for months.

>>Experts:
>>'No doubt' attack 'preplanned'

Again a quote that you are heading as an expert when it really is the Libyan President. Your credibility with these quotes really nosedives when you assign them to whoever you feel like when they source shows who really said it.

So imagine again, the President of Libya trying not to make his religious zeaolots look like maniacal idiots killing over a stupid youtube video so he says it is pre-planned attack.

When did you suddenly become so gullible to fall for anything someone says and not think if they have an agenda behind them. Your entire post is riddled with assigning the quotes to the wrong people and then ignoring that they obviously have an agenda and will say what helps them best.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>OK, we get the fact that Obama promised the sky and the moon when he was running to get elected.

OK...we get that you and the liberal media will dismiss everything.


>>So this wasn't Obama saying it, though you quoted it to him apparently.

Clearly speaking for the Obama administration.  You don't think they all get their notes together before going out?  


>>Again a quote that you are heading as an expert when it really is the Libyan President.

I've not heard ONE outside (outside the white house) say this was not a planned attack.  Each and everyone says this was planned.  Obama knows a terror attack on his watch could be devestating, especially when you consider they had DAYS notice of an upcoming attack - hence, more lying and crossing fingers that it works.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
Just a reminder that we aren't the only ones in the world with foreign relations problems:

OK, Tensions Between China and Japan Are Getting Serious : http://kotaku.com/5943762/ok-tensions-between-china-and-japan-are-getting-serious?utm_campaign=socialflow_kotaku_facebook&utm_source=kotaku_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
So what should Obama do with the China/Japan issue?

Ignore it so everyone could say he does nothing?
Side with China so everyone can say he is going against an ally?
Side with Japan so everyone can say he is pissing off our biggest creditor?

What would Romney do?

Bash Obama for whatever choice he makes?
Say he could do it much better?
Give not one idea or detail or plan for how he would do it better?
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
Japan is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.  

And just as Obama believes the US gained economically at the expense of other nations, he too must assume the same of the Japanese.  Therefore, in his mind, it's only right that Obama enable the return of confiscated wealth to some of the poor chinese people.

Not to mention, Obama's job czar, GE CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, loves to ship jobs to China.  Therefore, by backing China, Obama also backs his own jobs plan.




Michelle Bachmann to Obama: Cancel Letterman and Jay-Z, Meet with Netanyahu
(AMEN!)
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
So you're saying he is going to back China, but should back Japan?

>>Michelle Bachmann to Obama: Cancel Letterman and Jay-Z, Meet with Netanyahu

Coming from Bachmann doesn't hold a lot of weight with me in the first place. But I still don't see how cancelling Letterman and Jay Z (all happening this week), is going to free up time for the President to meet with Netanyahu at the end of September?

Should he use this weeks extra time to build a Flux Capacitor and make Netanyahu visit show up sooner?

The guy is meeting with the Secretary of State. Probably a position with more benefit to him than meeting Obama anyway as her job is foreign affairs!

During this whole crisis going on, has Romney actually said what he would have done differently, or plans, or anything other than attack Obama?
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>So you're saying he is going to back China, but should back Japan?

I'm sure he'll take a poll, figure out what he should say publicly, wait to see if he gets reelected, and then say what he really feels.  His goal is to level the playing field worldwide at the expense of the American people.

Obama: After My Election I Have More Flexibility



>>Should he use this weeks extra time to build a Flux Capacitor and make Netanyahu visit show up sooner?

He needs to quit acting like George McFly and turn in to Biff.  Just as Reagan stated, "weakness invites aggression."



>>Coming from Bachmann doesn't hold a lot of weight with me in the first place. But I still don't see how cancelling Letterman and Jay Z (all happening this week), is going to free up time for the President to meet with Netanyahu at the end of September?

Obama is the most anti-Israeli president in US history...even more so that Jimmy Carter.  Obama is bound and determine to let Iran have a nuclear weapon, which not only threatens Israel but also is a direct threat to US and our interests.
0
 
beetosCommented:
His goal is to level the playing field worldwide at the expense of the American people.

 "weakness invites aggression."

determine to let Iran have a nuclear weapon, which not only threatens Israel but also is a direct threat to US and our interests.

Ahh election season.   And since the Democrat is leading, it's time for the drums of war to start beating - "We're in great danger!  We need a Republican!"   not to mention,  a special bonus from the right wing fringe just for Obama:  His goal is to destroy America.

This rhetoric would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>> And since the Democrat is leading

Rasmussen:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote.



>>His goal is to destroy America.

As Obama puts it: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"


>>But I still don't see how cancelling Letterman and Jay Z (all happening this week), is going to free up time for the President to meet with Netanyahu at the end of September?

I'm sure you and other libs really can't see.   Same way France and Britain ignored Hitler.

Obama is absolutely doing NOTHING to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  His whole presidency has revolved around shunning out our biggest ally in the middle east.
0
 
beetosCommented:
Has his whole Presidency really revolved around shunning our biggest ally in the middle east, or is that just the latest right wing talking point in an election year?
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>Has his whole Presidency really revolved around shunning our biggest ally in the middle east, or is that just the latest right wing talking point in an election year?


Perhaps you'd like to prove otherwise?
0
 
beetosCommented:
Why bother - the Republican meme is that nothing short of an immediate military attack on Iran will suffice - and even if Obama attacked Iran, he'd still be wrong for some reason.

I personally believe that not attacking Iran is better policy.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
One thing I've noticed with those supporting this current administration is they dismiss history, patterns, associations, and actual words.  There's an excuse for any and every action.

This current Democrat party has taken a sharp turn left since the days of JFK and even Bill Clinton.


>>I personally believe that not attacking Iran is better policy.

Yeah, I'm sure Britain and France thought the same thing about Germany.  Appeasement is a much better option.  

Let's ignore the #1 sponsor of terror, the country vowing to wipe Israel off the map.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>Yeah, I'm sure Britain and France thought the same thing about Germany.

It is a totally different situation. Hitler was actively killing Jews. Amassing a huge army and weapons and parading them down the streets of Germany. We have nothing like that happening here. There are no mass killings. We have absolutely no proof that they have anything near the capability of having a nuke.

Also we have crippling sanctions on them right now. What is the Romney answer? Nobody knows because he hasn't said anything except Obama is wrong. Should we put boots on the ground there now? Storm their government? Send in the drones? What do you think really should be done?

We will have to go with Eric's plan since we don't have one from Romney on Iran, or the Middle East, or how he is going to close those tax loopholes.

I don't like everything Obama does, but I'm trying to find some inkling of a reason to vote for Romney and he won't give me one. He hides his taxes and wont tell me how he is going to close loopholes. His plan is all "sounds good but details after I'm elected". He bashes Obama on Middle East crisis but offers no suggestions on what he will do. He also blasts Iran for a Nuke but has no plan to handle it? He really comes off like a talking head with no idea what he is talking about.

Substance anyone?
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>Hitler was actively killing Jews.

What do you think Iran wants to do?


>>There are no mass killings.

Do you want to wait for the mushroom cloud before you react?


>> I'm trying to find some inkling of a reason to vote for Romney and he won't give me one.

How about fiscal discipline, private business experience, fixed the Olympics, former governor in Democrat territory?


>>He also blasts Iran for a Nuke but has no plan to handle it?

Obama stole all the good ideas - like Letterman, Jay Z, etc...
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>What do you think Iran wants to do?

Hitler actually had the means to do so and did. That is a major difference than just talking about it for 100 years.

>>Do you want to wait for the mushroom cloud before you react?

No. The Armageddon that the conservatives always like to throw around before starting a war is very convenient. It usually falls flat though. There is no actual proof that they are anywhere near having a nuke. After Bush's phantom WMD's in Iraq, the President cannot just go off on a maybe.

But in the even that you are right, what action do you feel should be done today? Romney hasn't given any kind of a plan for this so I'll ask you. Should we put boots on the ground there now? Storm their government? Send in the drones? What do you think really should be done today?

>>How about fiscal discipline, private business experience, fixed the Olympics, former governor in Democrat territory?

OK. There is a whole bunch of stuff in his past. What are his plans for doing any of the things he claims he will do?

He has a tax plan to close loopholes with no details of which loopholes, or how he will close them. He says it wont make taxes go up on the middle class but he doesn't say how extending the tax rates will be paid for? He says the details will be worked out after the election. How convenient that is for him?

He said Obama is handling Iran and the Middle East all wrong but he has offered no plan himself as to what he would do differently.

He can't keep a story straight from one interview to the next about how he is going to repeal or replace ObamaCare. He likes the pre-existing conditions on TV, then has one of his guys say he didn't mean that when his base got upset about it.

>>>>He also blasts Iran for a Nuke but has no plan to handle it?
>>Obama stole all the good ideas - like Letterman, Jay Z, etc...

That's actually as good an answer as Romney has given.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>Hitler actually had the means to do so and did.

What about a nuclear weapon do you not understand?


>>But in the even that you are right,

If I'm right, millions potentially die.  Iran is a country not worried about repercussions.



>>what action do you feel should be done today?

The ONLY option is a military strike (missles) on Iran's nuclear facilities.  Everything else has been tried and has failed.


>>He has a tax plan to close loopholes

You can close every loophole, tax the "rich" 100% and you'll cover two months of Obama's spending.  



>>Should we put boots on the ground there now?

No need to.


>> After Bush's phantom WMD's in Iraq,

I think you mean Clinton.  Bill Clinton is on record multiple times saying Iraq had WMDs.  You guys need to move on.



>>I don't like everything Obama does, but I'm trying to find some inkling of a reason to vote for Romney

If you're even considering voting for Obama, you ARE NOT in the middle.  You are a liberal.  This is the most left-wing president ever.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>What about a nuclear weapon do you not understand?

Any proof that they actually are close to having one.

>>If I'm right, millions potentially die.  Iran is a country not worried about repercussions.

I agree, but there needs to be some kind of proof or something besides "we think so"

>>The ONLY option is a military strike (missles) on Iran's nuclear facilities.  Everything else has been tried and has failed.

You do know that there is more usage to nuclear than just blowing people up, right? Their nuclear facilities are generating power for their people. That is their entire claim. If you are right then I understand, but if you are not you are crippling an already poor country.

The religious zealots that are proclaiming death to Israel are a small percentage of the citizens of Iran you know. Most are just trying to go about their lives, and are struggling because of the sanctions we have on the country presently. If you blow up their main source of power, and there is no nukes, what have you accomplished? Will you just blow it up again in 10 years when they build up again?

>>I think you mean Clinton.  Bill Clinton is on record multiple times saying Iraq had WMDs.  You guys need to move on.

Bill didn't go to war on the maybe though. That was Bush's call. That was Bush's mistake. It don't matter who was in office though as the office of the President was wrong about big bombs before and if they are wrong again then they look very very bad to the rest of the world. Need proof.

>>If you're even considering voting for Obama, you ARE NOT in the middle.  You are a liberal.  This is the most left-wing president ever.

According to conservative talking points yes. And Romney is the epitome of all the right wing craziness too. The polarization presently in government is it's biggest problem. Neither option is right all the time, but there is no middle.

Other than Romney is on the right, and you like the right, what are his actual plans for doing anything he says he will do. Has he said he will missile strike Iran? Has he said how he will handle the Middle East crisis? Has he given any indication of what loopholes he will suddenly close or how he will do so? What has he said that shows what he will do?

I had the same feelings about Obama 4 years ago but he was more on track than McCain ever was so that is why I voted for him. The elections before was clearly an easy vote for Bush as Kerry was a hack, and I never liked Al Gore. This year though I see positives and negatives in both sides, but Romney's positives are just what sounds good without substance. Where is the substance of what he is going to do?

I'm honestly giving you a chance to convince me why I should be voting for Romney. Without the Obama bashing or just reiterating his talking points, what will he actually do?
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>Any proof that they actually are close to having one.

You're lost, man.  Not even worth a response.


>>I'm honestly giving you a chance to convince me why I should be voting for Romney.

If you're asking which candidate will give out more tax payer freebies, then Romney absolutely can't compete.   If you're wanting a candidate who will add another $6 trillion to the debt over 4 years, again, Romney can't compete.  If you're wanting a president that has had record numbers leaving the workforce and entering food stamps, then Romney's not you're guy.  

If you're wanting less domestic production in oil and a president that enables other countries to drill, then better not vote for Romney.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>You're lost, man.  Not even worth a response.

OK.

>>If you're asking which candidate will give out more tax payer freebies, then Romney absolutely can't compete.   If you're wanting a candidate who will add another $6 trillion to the debt over 4 years, again, Romney can't compete.  If you're wanting a president that has had record numbers leaving the workforce and entering food stamps, then Romney's not you're guy.  
>>If you're wanting less domestic production in oil and a president that enables other countries to drill, then better not vote for Romney.

That's the best you got? Another paragraph of Obama bashing rather than even one reason as to why I should vote Romney? Something not from his past accomplishments, but something he will do for the country. Nothing?


Off Topic a bit:

I just stumbled on this great video showing the incredible accuracy of FoxNews and thought you would enjoy it. They can't even report technology in reality.

Fox Reporter Says iPhone 5 Has Holographic Display, Laser Keyboard (Video) | TechnoBuffalo : http://www.technobuffalo.com/companies/apple/iphone/fox-reporter-says-iphone-5-has-holographic-display-laser-keyboard-video/
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>Fox Reporter Says iPhone 5 Has Holographic Display, Laser Keyboard (Video) | TechnoBuffalo : http://www.technobuffalo.com/companies/apple/iphone/fox-reporter-says-iphone-5-has-holographic-display-laser-keyboard-video/


Hate to burst your bubble, but that's some local Fox station, not Fox News.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>Another paragraph of Obama bashing

If Obama left another $6 trillion in debt during his second term, would you vote for him?
0
 
beetosCommented:
Of that $6 trillion Cars,  

How much was from Bush's last year in office that included TARP ( As you know the fiscal year ends not when the President takes office, but months later )?

How much went to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan ( which Bush didn't want to include in his budgets)?

How much is caused by the Bush tax cuts?

How much is from the interest on the existing debt?

Now,  exactly how much of this $6 Trillion number did Obama add and where did it go?
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>If Obama left another $6 trillion in debt during his second term, would you vote for him?

This also still is just another Obama bash. Give me something Romney will do that is a reason to vote for him. Not just shrink the deficit either. How is he going to do it? Closing loopholes in taxes? Which and where and how? He said he will work out those details after the election. Ryan's budget also has a lot of hairy details to be worked out after the election too.

That doesn't sound fishy to you, like just saying something people want to hear?
0
 
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
Both here and on Facebook, I never hear anything good about Romney, just bad about Obama.  Actually, I do hear 'bad' from Romney about how he can't attract the 47% of the population that doesn't pay taxes so he's going to ignore them.  Anyone who thinks that these are all people on welfare, on the government dole, is going to be insulting a lot of working people.  They're playing by the same tax rules that Romney does except that they have less money to do it with.  He has no excuse to ignore them.  If you're going to run for President, you need to be President for All the people.

We're going to let Romney keep on talking.  It appears that he is going to talk himself Out of the Presidency.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
Who Are the 47 Percent? 7 Facts about the Americans Mitt Romney Attacked - The Daily Beast : http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/18/who-are-the-47-percent-7-facts-about-the-americans-mitt-romney-attacked.html
0
 
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
^^^ That sounds about right.  As it happens, I'm one of the people that has paid no income tax for the last two years.  But I have paid income and Social Security taxes for over 50 years.  My Social Security Retirement pays about half my bills and I have to work for the rest.  Since I'm self-employed, I still pay Self-Employment / Social Security taxes though my income after the standard deduction means I pay no income taxes.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>This also still is just another Obama bash.

Another excuse not to talk about Obama's record.  You can't speak of Romney without contrasting him to the current president.



>>If you're going to run for President, you need to be President for All the people.

Never ever been a more divisive president.




>>How much is caused by the Bush tax cuts?

Bill Clinton: Extend Bush Tax Cuts
(I guarantee you'll just glance over this post and ignore it)





>>Now,  exactly how much of this $6 Trillion number did Obama add and where did it go?

Suppose you answer that, seeing that you're making the case this is a fiscally disciplined president.  Exactly how much do you attribute to Obama?
0
 
beetosCommented:
Another excuse not to talk about Obama's record.  You can't speak of Romney without contrasting him to the current president.


You're only contrast is that he's not Obama - nothing about what Romney would do.  Where's the beef?  Obama said some very specific things as a candidate;   getting out of Iraq, pursuing Bin Laden to Pakistan, enacting health care...


Bill Clinton: Extend Bush Tax Cuts
Suddenly you're listening to the "pervert?"  From NBC no less?



Suppose you answer that, seeing that you're making the case this is a fiscal disciplined president.  Exactly how much do you attribute to Obama?

I know you are but what am I!!!!     You're the one that keeps throwing this accusation out, and I'm asking you to back it up with facts.  I'm not surprised you can't.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
Prime example of media bias.  Had this been Bush the media would be relentless:
Obama’s Security Breach In Libya Is Ignored By American Media



>>Suddenly you're listening to the "pervert?"  From NBC no less?

Apparently you're ignoring it.  Bill Clinton disagrees with Obama.  Who do you think is right?



>>Where's the beef?

Romney voices aggressive stance toward Iran
Mitt Romney would respect an Israeli decision to make a unilateral military strike against Iran aimed at preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear capability
0
 
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
So the only thing you have quoted Romney as saying that he would do is drop the bomb on Iran.  The American people do not want that to happen, even if it is actually necessary.  We're tired of the wars and the dying and it doesn't matter whether it has been 'necessary'.  That's just one more thing that Romney has said that is losing him votes.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
That's logical.  People are turning to Obama because they want Iran to (1) have a nuclear weapon and (2) have Iran bomb Israel.
0
 
beetosCommented:
Prime example of media bias.  Had this been Bush the media would be relentless:
Obama’s Security Breach In Libya Is Ignored By American Media

No one seems to know all the facts.   But the attacks have been on the news non-stop so it's only these right-wing-nut allegations which aren't being reported as the top story - that's your issue?


Apparently you're ignoring it.  Bill Clinton disagrees with Obama.  Who do you think is right?

Clinton doesn't think they should be permanent, and he doesn't say how long they should be in place.  


Mitt Romney would respect an Israeli decision...

Ok, so Mitt would let Isreal do what it wants.   That still doesn't say a damn thing about what Mitt would do.  

I know you've always hated Obama, but at least he had a platform!
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>I know you've always hated Obama, but at least he had a platform!

Technically he doesn't.  The Dems took "God" out and then inserted it back, yet they did it without the necessary votes.  Dems at the convention voted God down 3 times.




>>Clinton doesn't think they should be permanent,

Obama wants them gone now and Clinton doesn't (one is right and one is wrong).  Honestly, I would almost love to give Obama want he wants.  Let everyone see the unintended consequences.
0
 
beetosCommented:
Boo hoo - you didn't say God enough!  You're not a good candidate!


Of course, you guys believe the leaders you choose actually do talk to God:

"God told me to invade Iraq!"

Is it any wonder sane people don't want Romney "I'd support whatever Isreal wants to do" to be in charge of the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world?
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>>"God told me to invade Iraq!"

Hmm, I wonder if that's what Hillary Clinton and all the rest of the Democrats said when they voted to authorize war against Iraq?



>>Is it any wonder sane people don't want Romney

Only the insane could look at Obama's last 4 years and say, "Hell yeah, i want 4 more years of record deficits, high unemployment, and turmoil in the middle east"
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>You can't speak of Romney without contrasting him to the current president.

All I've been trying to do is get you to speak about Romney! Anything at all that he will actually do! You keep bringing up Obama every time instead. I am not contrasting him to Obama. I'm contrasting him to the office of the President of the United States. Any candidate I would want to hear what he plans to do to fix things and enact the promises he is making. He won't answer that until after he is elected. That sucks!

Only the insane could look at Obama's last 4 years and say, "Hell yeah, i want 4 more years of record deficits, high unemployment, and turmoil in the middle east"

record deficits - What will Romney do to fix it?
high unemployment - What will Romney do to fix it?
turmoil in the middle east - What will Romney do to fix it?

An answer this time would be great. A plan. A detail. Something.
0
 
beetosCommented:
Only the insane could look at Obama's last 4 years and say, "Hell yeah, i want 4 more years of record deficits, high unemployment, and turmoil in the middle east"

You still haven't established what part of the deficit Obama is responsible for.  Turmoil in the middle east?  Is that a new thing?  

Conservatives have been attacking Obama for the economic meltdown that started before he became President since he became President.  Given what we faced, and the opposition he faced in Congress, he's done  a great job of turning things around.   I just saw this morning, on Fox news no less, that house builders confidence is the highest it's been since 2006!  

Suppose Mitt wins - on what exact date is he to blame for the economy?
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
>> Turmoil in the middle east?  Is that a new thing?  

Obama:  THE DAY I'M INAUGURATED MUSLIM HOSTILITY WILL EASE


>>record deficits - What will Romney do to fix it?

1.  Get Economy back on track by enabling small businesses to keep their own money
2.  Remove strangling Obama regulations
3.  Cut spending to 20% of GDP
4.  Initiate trade agreements so that US products can be sold easier to foreign countries.



>>Conservatives have been attacking Obama for the economic meltdown that started before he became President since he became President.

I've never seen that, even though he supports the liberal policies that got us in to the mess.  He was hired to fix it.  He has failed.  Time to move on to proven techniques and remember to never hire a community organizer again.


>>Suppose Mitt wins - on what exact date is he to blame for the economy?

I suppose he can pull an "obama" and continue to blame Bush.
0
 
beetosCommented:
1.  Get Economy back on track by enabling small businesses to keep their own money

What is that, tax cuts?  Tax cuts on "small businesses" making over $250,000?  Please be specific.

2.  Remove strangling Obama regulations

Which regulations?   You mean like the ones aimed at stopping air pollution?  Do you see the irony that they are the opposite of STRANGLING?


3.  Cut spending to 20% of GDP

Cut what spending ?   Cause from what I've seen from Mitt, I'm pretty sure that those cuts will target the middle class.

4.  Initiate trade agreements so that US products can be sold easier to foreign countries.

I wouldn't blindly trust Mitt with this,  given his record with sending money and jobs to foreign countries, but I'd be interested in some actual details.


You've never seen what - conservatives attack Obama for the economic meltdown?  Oh yeah, you're right - conservatives don't even want to acknowledge that even happened!  


I suppose he can pull an "obama" and continue to blame Bush.

Strange how he'd go from blaming Obama to blaming Bush.   Still, when does he own it?  Never?  Day 1?  Somewhere in between?  

Here's another question for you:  Is the financial state of the country better now than it was four years ago?
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
1.  Get Economy back on track by enabling small businesses to keep their own money
2.  Remove strangling Obama regulations
3.  Cut spending to 20% of GDP
4.  Initiate trade agreements so that US products can be sold easier to foreign countries.

Thank you for actually answering at least one part of the question. Now if only Romney would tell us how he plans to do these things:

1 - He plans on closing loopholes. Businesses use loopholes all the time to keep their tax rate low. So which is it? Close loopholes or help businesses. We would know if he had a plan instead of just saying this.

2 - Regulations need to be balanced. Can't have zero regulations, but they have to be a lot less than what we have now. If he would say which regulations he would remove, that would be something, but an overall blanket statement still just sounds like what his base wants to hear and no plan to back it up.

3 - Any plan or details on what he is going to cut? I'm sure he will say the conservative favorites like food stamps and a lot of social programs, but which and how much and good luck getting all that approved. Also increasing it elsewhere like on military doesn't help cut spending. It just moves it around.

4 - Does he have any agreements he has proposed? That would be good to see. Have to be careful of this one though as he might be putting regulations on trade and the free market is supposed to decide that in the conservative base.

Good conservative talking points that you got there, but still void of any way to actually do any of that. Some even contradict each other or his other issues.
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
Here you go.  Hitting the news just now.

Definitive proof, undeniable.  


Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"
0
 
EricLynnWrightAuthor Commented:
New Poll:

Obama’s Foreign Policy Approval Rating Drops After Mideast Turmoil
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-foreign-policy-approval-rating-drops-after-mideast-turmoil
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.