z0phi3l, on 06 October 2012 - 00:10, said:
Being strong on Defense is not the same as being a warmonger
Hell based on the facts Obama has been a bigger warmonger than Bush
A very good article noting that it might not necessarily be Romney or Obama that ultimately dictate foreign policy, but the group of advisers Romney or Obama surrounds themselves with. Talks about the influence of advisers during previous administrations, and their influences on foreign policy.
Obama has been a war monger, but not in the traditional sense. Yes, much to my disappointment he continued with the normal timetables set by Bush and the joint chiefs for Iraq and Afghanistan, but when it comes to newer conflicts that occurred on his watch, they're all small precise surgical strikes. We've used drones to an extent never reached before in taking out enemies, we've (more than likely) worked with Mossad agents to sabotage Iranian nuclear facilities through viruses [Stuxnet], power disruptions, & explosives, we used a small Navy Seal operation in Pakistan took out Bin Laden, and we only provided air support for Libya during the final days of Gaddafi's regime. Fast, quick, and relatively cheap operations compared to the mess we left in Iraq, and the mess we're going to leave in Afghanistan. I'd much prefer this latter type of warfare, rather than spending decades occupying quagmires, wasting lives and money along the way.
The main reason I fear Romney to be a bigger war monger than Obama as of now is because of his staunch support for Israel. I'm very critical of extremist elements in the Middle East, this includes governments that are our enemies, as well as governments that are our friends. Obama and Netanyahu seem to have a pretty rocky relationship, and I don't think Netanyahu is convinced that he'll have Obama's complete support in a pre-emptive strike (for instance), whereas a Romney win may play in Netanyahu's favor. Of course, Romney could just be playing to his right wing constituency. After seeing Romney become a centrist during the latest debate, and saying that his comments about the 47% were "wrong" as opposed to "inelegantly stated", I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to him (especially after his numerous flip flops since being Governor of Massachusetts)
Why does Romney plan on spending so much for defense if we aren't going to use it? If there was a real urgent threat and we needed a military post-haste, I would understand, but given how bloated our defense budget is and how bad people are suffering here in the US, I think it's time that money is reallocated from bullets to beans so to speak so we can do some nation building here domestically for a change.