Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

'Moderate Mitt': Neocon Trojan Horse

+2
no stress
Floridatexan
6 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14161-focus-moderate-mitt-neocon-trojan-horse

"Mitt Romney's peculiar sense of geography - thinking Iran was some landlocked country that needed Syria as a "route to the sea" - may have raised some eyebrows over Romney's lack of basic knowledge, but another part of the same answer, referring to the civil war in Syria as "an opportunity," should have raised more alarm.

Though Romney's goal in Monday's foreign policy debate was to downplay his warlike neoconservative stands, his reference to the Syrian chaos as "an opportunity" suggests that his more moderate rhetoric is just another ploy to deceive voters and win the election, not a real abandonment of neocon strategies.

In that sense, the new "moderate Mitt" is less a sign of a neocon retreat from his earlier bellicosity than a Trojan Horse to be wheeled onto the White House grounds on Jan. 20, 2013, so the neocons can pour forth from its hollowed-out belly and regain full control of U.S. foreign policy.

So, the neocons don't really mind that Romney has suddenly abandoned many of their cherished positions, such as extending the Afghan War beyond 2014 and returning U.S. troops to Iraq. The neocons understand the political need for Romney to calm independent voters who fear that he may be another George W. Bush.

In Monday's debate, Romney said, "Syria's an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us. Number two, seeing a — a replacement government being responsible people is critical for us."

The "route to the sea" comment - with its faint echo of a distant time in geopolitics - represented proof that Romney lacks even a rudimentary knowledge of world geography, since much of Iran's southern territory fronts on the Persian Gulf and Iran could only reach Syria by transiting Iraq. Syria and Iran have no common border.

But more significantly, Romney was revealing the crucial connection between the neocon desire for "regime change" in Syria and the neocon determination to strangle Israel's close-in enemies, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah..."


no stress

no stress

people make mistakes FT. I remember something about 57 states..... I wouldnt put much stock in this.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Syria would be a route to the Mediterranean Sea for Iran....you know the Mediterranean sea borders Israel.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

The Iranian threat is as overstated as the Iraqi threat was back in 2003. Iran is not a threat to the security of the United States. Nor is it a threat to Israel, which has a very powerful secret nuclear arsenal. Iran attacking Israel would be a fool's gamble that I sincerely doubt they would take, if they could.

If the neocons get their new Persian Gulf war, it will be good for stockholders of the oil majors and minors, because the price of oil is going to skyrocket. China is a major ally of Iran because they buy lots of Iranian oil, and will not look kindly on that supply being disrupted.

Mitt will start new wars with his greatly expanded military, under the advice of the same neocons who drove W's foreign policy.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Pffft... Little to nothing would happen under one and not the other. Except maybe a little less social initiative crap.

Who did you say you voted for again?

no stress

no stress

The Iranian threat is as overstated as the Iraqi threat was back in 2003. Iran is not a threat to the security of the United States. Nor is it a threat to Israel,


Freakin incredible !!!!

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PkrBum wrote:Pffft... Little to nothing would happen under one and not the other. Except maybe a little less social initiative crap.

[b]Who did you say you voted for again?[/b]

Johnson. I watched some YouTubes of his speeches, and in one I liked that he said he would use his presidential powers to keep Israel from attacking Iran. I liked that, his fiscal restraints and a bunch of other stuff he said.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Gunz wrote:The Iranian threat is as overstated as the Iraqi threat was back in 2003. Iran is not a threat to the security of the United States. Nor is it a threat to Israel,


Freakin incredible !!!!

You need to broaden your horizons beyond putting out fires.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Exclamation
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Pffft... Little to nothing would happen under one and not the other. Except maybe a little less social initiative crap.

[b]Who did you say you voted for again?[/b]

Johnson. I watched some YouTubes of his speeches, and in one I liked that he said he would use his presidential powers to keep Israel from attacking Iran. I liked that, his fiscal restraints and a bunch of other stuff he said.

He has been vacuous on the fed... I don't find him a compelling candidate.

Better than romney/obama... Yes... but I will write in Paul.

The only reason I wouldn't would be if one side or the other would gain majority control.

Guest


Guest

romney did exactly what he had to do. he understands strategy.

nadalfan



Rogue wrote:romney did exactly what he had to do. he understands strategy.

Can you elaborate on this? He understands strategy so he...what?

Guest


Guest

nadalfan wrote:
Rogue wrote:romney did exactly what he had to do. he understands strategy.

Can you elaborate on this? He understands strategy so he...what?

sure.

they are complaining because romney didnt come out in the foriegn ppolicy debate looking like a war mongering neocon.

well, thats because he not first of all. he's not a neo con. he is moderate, always has been with the exception of his stance on religion and abortion. religion and abortion do not make a neo con.

Romney showed he had a good grasp on foreign policy issues. He needed to look like a person who could be calm, presidential like. He needed to show people that he was not gonna come charging out of the gates into wars.

He did exactly what he needed to do. in the final debate he made obama look more war like than him. and you know the odd thing, obama may be more war mongering than him. mormons are not exactly known for being war mongers.

either way, it was a fine strategy. and being able to put in place a strategy and keep it certainly is a very very important part of partaking in diliberations with foriegn leaders as a president.



Last edited by Rogue on 10/25/2012, 8:30 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:[color=darkblue]The Iranian threat is as overstated as the Iraqi threat was back in 2003. .

It would seem a great number of country's disagree with your "analysis".

nadalfan



Rogue wrote:
nadalfan wrote:
Rogue wrote:romney did exactly what he had to do. he understands strategy.

Can you elaborate on this? He understands strategy so he...what?

sure.

they are complaining because romney didnt come out in the foriegn ppolicy debate looking like a war mongering neocon.

well, thats because he not first of all. he's not a neo con. he is moderate, always has been with the exception of his stance on religion and abortion. religion and abortion do not make a neo con.

Romney showed he had a good grasp on foreign policy issues. He needed to look like a person who could be calm, presidential like. He needed to show people that he was not gonna come charging out of the gates into wars.

He did exactly what he needed to do. in the final debate he made obama look more war like than him. and you know the odd thing, obama may be more war mongering than him. mormons are not exactly known for being war mongers.

either way, it was a fine strategy. and being able to put in place a strategy and keep it certainly is a very very important part of partaking in diliberations with foriegn leaders as a president.


What bothers me is that he changed his position on several issues and agreed with Obama's handling of foreign affairs on many of them.
The impression I got is that he will say whatever he thinks will turn voters to him, despite proof he didn't agree with Obama before the debate. So, if he is elected, I do not know what the hell he is going to do. Which Romney are we going to get?

Guest


Guest

[quote="nadalfan"][quote="Rogue"]
nadalfan wrote:
Rogue wrote:ro


What bothers me is that he changed his position on several issues and agreed with Obama's handling of foreign affairs on many of them. ?

If you think about it one advantage he has now is more access to information that is not available to average citizens, of which he was one until the nomination. It is likely there are influences that would cause one to change their perspective on situations after reviewing all available information. Add in the fact he is a politician and sure - you will get some changes. How times has BHO changed his mind on issues or not done what he promised (closing GTMO for example) after considering the broader impacts of a decision?

nadalfan



[quote="nochain"][quote="nadalfan"]
Rogue wrote:
nadalfan wrote:
Rogue wrote:ro


What bothers me is that he changed his position on several issues and agreed with Obama's handling of foreign affairs on many of them. ?

If you think about it one advantage he has now is more access to information that is not available to average citizens, of which he was one until the nomination. It is likely there are influences that would cause one to change their perspective on situations after reviewing all available information. Add in the fact he is a politician and sure - you will get some changes. How times has BHO changed his mind on issues or not done what he promised (closing GTMO for example) after considering the broader impacts of a decision?

Ok, fair enough, but did he have such little information before that he changed and agreed with Obama on so much?

Guest


Guest

[quote="nadalfan"][quote="nochain"][quote="nadalfan"]
Rogue wrote:
nadalfan wrote:
Rogue wrote:ro



Ok, fair enough, but did he have such little information before that he changed and agreed with Obama on so much?

Sometimes there is only route to solve an issue, BHO couldn't be wrong all the time. Disagreement for disagreements sake is bad for the country.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Gunz wrote:people make mistakes FT. I remember something about 57 states..... I wouldnt put much stock in this.

Romney does yet ANOTHER complete about-face, and you say not to put much stock in it? A slip of the tongue is one thing; a forked tongue is quite another. Or do the lies just not matter to you?

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Rogue wrote:
nadalfan wrote:
Rogue wrote:romney did exactly what he had to do. he understands strategy.

Can you elaborate on this? He understands strategy so he...what?

sure.

they are complaining because romney didnt come out in the foriegn ppolicy debate looking like a war mongering neocon.

well, thats because he not first of all. he's not a neo con. he is moderate, always has been with the exception of his stance on religion and abortion. religion and abortion do not make a neo con.

Romney showed he had a good grasp on foreign policy issues. He needed to look like a person who could be calm, presidential like. He needed to show people that he was not gonna come charging out of the gates into wars.

He did exactly what he needed to do. in the final debate he made obama look more war like than him. and you know the odd thing, obama may be more war mongering than him. mormons are not exactly known for being war mongers.

either way, it was a fine strategy. and being able to put in place a strategy and keep it certainly is a very very important part of partaking in diliberations with foriegn leaders as a president.


Congratulations...way to rationalize! That's why he chose JOHN BOLTON as a foreign policy advisor! Dear GOD!

Guest


Guest

[quote="Floridatexan"][quote="Rogue"]
nadalfan wrote:
Rogue wrote:r


Congratulations...way to rationalize! That's why he chose JOHN BOLTON as a foreign policy advisor! Dear GOD!

You must somehow think that lying piece of turkey poop Susan Rice is the way to go eh?

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:The Iranian threat is as overstated as the Iraqi threat was back in 2003. Iran is not a threat to the security of the United States. Nor is it a threat to Israel, which has a very powerful secret nuclear arsenal. Iran attacking Israel would be a fool's gamble that I sincerely doubt they would take, if they could.

If the neocons get their new Persian Gulf war, it will be good for stockholders of the oil majors and minors, because the price of oil is going to skyrocket. China is a major ally of Iran because they buy lots of Iranian oil, and will not look kindly on that supply being disrupted.

Mitt will start new wars with his greatly expanded military, under the advice of the same neocons who drove W's foreign policy.

Romney is George W Bush on steroids. As you say, same advisors. I'll add same disinterest in foreign affairs unless he can make a billion or two.

Guest


Guest

othershoe1030 wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:The Iranian threat is as overstated as the Iraqi threat was back in 2003. Iran is not a threat to the security of the United States. Nor is it a threat to Israel, which has a very powerful secret nuclear arsenal. Iran attacking Israel would be a fool's gamble that I sincerely doubt they would take, if they could.

If the neocons get their new Persian Gulf war, it will be good for stockholders of the oil majors and minors, because the price of oil is going to skyrocket. China is a major ally of Iran because they buy lots of Iranian oil, and will not look kindly on that supply being disrupted.

Mitt will start new wars with his greatly expanded military, under the advice of the same neocons who drove W's foreign policy.

Romney is George W Bush on steroids. As you say, same advisors. I'll add same disinterest in foreign affairs unless he can make a billion or two.


and all this time I thought obama was GWB on steroids lol

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Seriously, if you didn't like Bush you really won't like Romney. He's got a lot of the same advisors, 17 out of 24 according to this article.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/11219/mitt-romney-foreign-policy-team-17-of-24-advisors-are-bush-neocons

That's on foreign policy. Looking at the domestic side of things isn't any better. He wants to cut taxes even more than Bush and apparently wants to rely on the old trickle down theory to "grow the economy" to pay for the tax cuts.

How can he seriously be concerned about the national debt when he picked someone as his running mate who voted for paying for the two wars off budget with no worries about paying for them. It was an emergency after all.

Problem with Romney he is a moving target to put it nicely.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum