Is Romney ready to start another war?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

celestemekent

Banned
Sep 7, 2012
532
0
0
"President Barack Obama hit back hard in a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast Sunday at Mitt Romney's criticisms of his handling of Syria and Iran, saying that if the Republican standard-bearer "is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so." Obama also brushed aside talk that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressuring him to take a harder line on Iran's suspicious nuclear program — source of some of Romney's sharpest campaign-trail criticisms.
"When it comes to our national security decisions-- any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people. And I am going to block out any noise that's out there," the president said.
"Now I feel an obligation -- not pressure but obligation -- to make sure that we're in close consultation with the Israelis-- on these issues, because it affects them deeply," Obama said. "They're one of our closest allies in the region. And we've got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel's existence."
Romney has accused Obama of not doing enough to curb Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran says is a civilian energy program but America and its allies say is an effort to develop the ability to build a nuclear weapon. He has also charged that the president has done too little to help rebels against Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad topple his regime as the civil war there has left perhaps as many as 20,000 dead.
Asked about those criticisms, Obama bristled.
"Let's see what I've done since I came into office: I said I'd end the war in Iraq. I did. I said that we'd go after Al Qaeda. They've been decimated in the FATA," he said, referring to Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, along the remote border with Afghanistan. "That we'd go after bin Laden. He's gone. So I've executed on my foreign policy. And it's one that the American people largely agree with."
"So if Governor Romney is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so," Obama said. That remark echoed suggestions from some of the president's advisers that Romney relies on so-called "neoconservative" advisers like those who championed the war in Iraq under President George W. Bush.
The interview — and a companion question-and-answer session with Romney — ran as Obama was poised to head to New York on Monday for the annual U.N. General Assembly, a brief pirouette on the world stage before he heads back out on the campaign trail. He will address the U.N. on Tuesday — exactly six weeks before Election Day — and then head out to the pivotal battleground of Ohio a day later.
The president won't hold separate meetings with any key world leaders, citing scheduling concerns. But Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have found time to sit down Monday with the ladies of "The View" to tape an interview.
(White House aides did not rule out that the president could have "pull-aside" discussions with world leaders. It's just what it sounds like: The president pull aside another head of state or government on the margins of a U.N. meeting for a quick chat.)
Last year, Obama used his general assembly speech to rebuke the Palestinians for trying to get the world body to essentially grant the status of a state. This year, the president is expected to blend a full-throated defense of his handling of foreign policy with a new warning to Iran. And he is expected to address the violent turmoil in the Middle East, notably in countries that saw the so-called "Arab Spring" uprisings sweep away longstanding authoritarian regimes.
"There are going to be bumps in the road," he said "There are strains of extremism, and anti-Americanism, and anti-Western sentiments." "There will probably be some times where we bump up against some of these countries and have strong disagreements, but I do think that over the long term we are more likely to get a Middle East and North Africa that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more aligned with our interests," he said. (After the interview, both the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee mocked Obama's use of "bumps in the road" in connection to the unrest).
Obama tends to get higher marks from the American public on foreign policy than on other issues — notably, the economy, which is the dominant issue on voters' minds. But he has seen his advantage over Romney shrink somewhat.
For his part, Romney has struggled to level more than rhetorical criticisms of Obama's foreign policy — sometimes sounding like he'd rather take on the Obama of 2008, who pledged to hold talks with leaders of Iran without preconditions, than the Obama of 2012, who has sharply escalated economic sanctions on the Islamic republic and reportedly unleashed unprecedented cyberwarfare to derail its nuclear program.
Still, the incumbent faces a dismaying number of foreign policy problems."


Romney has filled the adviser's spots all around himself with people from the Bush administration especially the ones who advised Bush to invade Iraq to begin with. Rhetorically, Romney has put himself into a corner on foreign policy one which war is the most likely outcome. Still he has not said if he "wants" war with Iran.


 
hmmmmm, we financed and supplied support for Arab Uprising, along with Britian, we are the ones making the Syria mess - using Arabs as front men. we are the ones messing with Iran. And we should fear Romney, why?

for those of you whom love your end-times: let us see whom will take Damascus. then all questions will be answered....
 
So I guess you support war with Iran? Do you think it is going to be some sort of "cake walk" or another 10 year long waste of blood and treasure? I remember Bush swearing to us that Iraq had WMD's and it turned into a quagmire. The facilities are underground and well dispersed there will not be a single strike to knock them all out but an invasion with thousands of troops and vehicles. How many $Trillions are you willing to spend and would you raise taxes to pay for it?
 
HEAVENS NO! My point is that Obama has been financing the destruction of half of the Middle and Near East - so what is he complaining about? We currently have troops relocated in Israel, we have been responsible for the mess in Syria (along with the British) and it may be Israeli planes whom knock out Iran's reactors (again) but it will be with US blessing.

For me, I am a realist. There will always be someone wanting to take over the world, someone wanting my freedoms, so I concentrate on the one thing no one can take - my relationship with God.
 
Do you have some "secret" information about our troops in Israel? I am pretty well caught up on foreign policy and cant remember any time when our troops have been in Israel for anything, much less messing with Syria. There is an internally based civil war there in Syria, and unless there is some CIA involvement we are not there at all.
 
Hi to you both ,,, here in the UK we dread the Republican comming to power because of late its always ment war with someone ,,,,,, why is that because the powers that be make a great deal of money off war ,,,,they could care less who dies its all about them very rich contrats to supply the food water and the arms for that war ,,,,,,, Mitt has so many of these people on his team ,,,, there not there cause they like his smile they are there to make sure they get there pay back for the money they put into his becomming the leader of the USA ,,,,,,,but they are the power men behind Mitt ,,,these men care noghting at all about lives what they do care about though is there bottom line ,,,,they will put millions to back Mitt ,,,, as long as they can make 100's of millions once he is the BOSS ,,,,,, Mitt knows full well what these men are after and its nothing at all all to do with the USA people ,,,,,, so they give 5 million to get a 100 million and that the bottom line of politics today !!

BADDOG
 
you need to read foreign news services, we supposedly have troops in Israel and Lebanon for a little over a month now.
as well as, Uganda. huh?
and even the BBC covered the SAS presence in Syria (and all of the other Arab countries whom have fallen) for quite sometime.
i also read and watch German, French and Russia news services. truth seems to lay somewhere in the middle of all of them.

just saying, what others more in the know are saying before it was even politically incorrect to know in this country.....

i would not condemn the Republicans as such, but i do have to wonder at the American blood lust demonstrated upon the world stage. there sure is no majority condemning the actions of our leaders in the blatant use of military force, whether ours or our backing of British excesses in Northern Africa, the Middle and Near East. this is politics at play, not Augustine's argument of the justifiable war (which is what Congress tends to use to justify their decisions).

but I agree Baddog, follow the money, the system is broken.
 
Well the US has interfered in other countries over 50 times since the end of WWII. We now have troops in over 140 countries and not always on friendly terms for the other countries.
 
since president obama began his term of office the middle east has seen five governments overthrown...three involving extreme violence...three ending in radical islamist takeovers...and two civil wars...including one involving direct western intervention...

but we are supposed to believe that the -republican- candidate is a danger to peace? :rolleyes:
 
Well Rachel the operative words are that those countries have chosen for themselves, sort of like our own country isn't it? When the newly elected Islamic Brotherhood president of Egypt facing the job of actually governing his country backed down dramatically and is even now moderating his rhetoric. Besides when a country has been run by a military junta for over 40 years, how else is one supposed to overturn the power elite?