The Foreign Policy Debate is The Big One

[mundame]

Monday night is the third and last debate, in Florida. It's on "Foreign Policy," meaning generally our relations with other nations.

The other two debates have been very powerful vote-movers, and I expect this one to be a big vote-mover too.

For Obama, I think his main problem is that he's vulnerable to Romney using the phrases "I'll never bow to any other country" and "My administration will never apologize to America," since the bowing and apologizing he did were very unpopular here.

For Romney, I think he has to reassure the public that he isn't a warmonger and is not in the pay of Israel: that visit to Israel did NOT look good, with Bibi constantly pressing, "Let's you and him fight!" Also not to threaten to draw out yet, yet longer our losing Forever Wars in Afghanistan and other worthless sandpits.

I think women in particular are heartily sick of all these pointless wars that are driving the country into deep deficits and dependency on China. Romney somehow reversed a lot of the female opposition to him in earlier debates, and he needs to be careful not to drive women right back to Obama by seeming too enthusiastic about war, war, war. More women vote than men do, so we are an important voting bloc, and women are in general not enthusiastic about Forever Wars, I think, so he needs to reassure the public that he is not a warmonger, and Obama needs to try to paint him as aggressive.

Do others have ideas on the important foreign issues that this last debate might cover?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Monday night is the third and last debate, in Florida. It's on "Foreign Policy," meaning generally our relations with other nations.

The other two debates have been very powerful vote-movers, and I expect this one to be a big vote-mover too.

For Obama, I think his main problem is that he's vulnerable to Romney using the phrases "I'll never bow to any other country" and "My administration will never apologize to America," since the bowing and apologizing he did were very unpopular here.

For Romney, I think he has to reassure the public that he isn't a warmonger and is not in the pay of Israel: that visit to Israel did NOT look good, with Bibi constantly pressing, "Let's you and him fight!" Also not to threaten to draw out yet, yet longer our losing Forever Wars in Afghanistan and other worthless sandpits.

I think women in particular are heartily sick of all these pointless wars that are driving the country into deep deficits and dependency on China. Romney somehow reversed a lot of the female opposition to him in earlier debates, and he needs to be careful not to drive women right back to Obama by seeming too enthusiastic about war, war, war. More women vote than men do, so we are an important voting bloc, and women are in general not enthusiastic about Forever Wars, I think, so he needs to reassure the public that he is not a warmonger, and Obama needs to try to paint him as aggressive.

Do others have ideas on the important foreign issues that this last debate might cover?

You can bet your last dollar the moderator and the obama team have already worked together to try to slay
Romney! Its a damn shame that in three debates we couldnt have even one moderator that wasnt in the tank for obama! Just goes to show how corrupt the government has become and even more so the President. Also serves to prove to the unbelievers that obama's media created image of being so extremely intelligent was just that lies and hype. Of course anybody not stupid knew that by listening to him speak when he was not reading a teleprompter giving him other people's words to say!

Lets see what kind of "control" they(obama+ mod have cooked up) put on Romney talking about the terrorist attack upon our ambassador in Libya.
I'd bet a 20 spot the mod will be forced to overplay his cheating hand to save obama 's sorry, worthless hide yet again..-Tyr

[red states rule]

You can bet your last dollar the moderator and the obama team have already worked together to try to slay
Romney! Its a damn shame that in three debates we couldnt have even one moderator that wasnt in the tank for obama! Just goes to show how corrupt the government has become and even more so the President. Also serves to prove to the unbelievers that obama's media created image of being so extremely intelligent was just that lies and hype. Of course anybody not stupid knew that by listening to him speak when he was not reading a teleprompter giving him other people's words to say!

Lets see what kind of "control" they(obama+ mod have cooked up) put on Romney talking about the terrorist attack upon our ambassador in Libya.
I'd bet a 20 spot the mod will be forced to overplay his cheating hand to save obama 's sorry, worthless hide yet again..-Tyr

You can bet your sweet ass Obama does not want this debate to take place. Obama wil have to expalin why he ignored the please for help, why the US Marines were not allowed to carry live ammo, and why they did NOTHING as the live video stream from the drone over the embassy showing the terror attack were IGNORED

There is no excuse and no reason Obama can give. he sat on his ass while 4 Americans were murdered

[mundame]

You can bet your last dollar the moderator and the obama team have already worked together to try to slay
Romney! Its a damn shame that in three debates we couldnt have even one moderator that wasnt in the tank for obama! Just goes to show how corrupt the government has become and even more so the President. Also serves to prove to the unbelievers that obama's media created image of being so extremely intelligent was just that lies and hype. Of course anybody not stupid knew that by listening to him speak when he was not reading a teleprompter giving him other people's words to say!

Lets see what kind of "control" they(obama+ mod have cooked up) put on Romney talking about the terrorist attack upon our ambassador in Libya.
I'd bet a 20 spot the mod will be forced to overplay his cheating hand to save obama 's sorry, worthless hide yet again..-Tyr

So you are thinking, Tyr-Ziu, that the big issue will be a crooked moderator trying to hijack the debate for Obama; but handicapped by Obama not being a good speaker if he doesn't have a speech fed to him.

And you think one of the issues Romney will bring up is the terrorist attack on our ambassador and staff in Libya, and the dubious White House mislabeling of it as a "protest."

[red states rule]

So you are thinking, Tyr-Ziu, that the big issue will be a crooked moderator trying to hijack the debate for Obama; but handicapped by Obama not being a good speaker if he doesn't have a speech fed to him.

And you think one of the issues Romney will bring up is the terrorist attack on our ambassador and staff in Libya, and the dubious White House mislabeling of it as a "protest."

Look what happened in the last debate Mundame. The "mod" jumped in to save Obama when Mitt had him nailed

We have VIDEO of the terror attack that was stramed LIVE for HOURS and Obama did nothing to try and save our people

[mundame]

You can bet your sweet ass Obama does not want this debate to take place. Obama wil have to expalin why he ignored the please for help, why the US Marines were not allowed to carry live ammo, and why they did NOTHING as the live video stream from the drone over the embassy showing the terror attack were IGNORED

There is no excuse and no reason Obama can give. he sat on his ass while 4 Americans were murdered

I don't know what the White House could have done, live video stream from a drone or not: it all happened within minutes and Libya is very far away.

I think the point of the Libya furor is that first they denied adequate security to the embassy, and second they pretended that this was somehow a deserved protest against some movie by some person who may well have been in on the al Qaeda plot. However, it was an organized attack on 9/11 with rockets, and now Zawahiri is calling for more "protests" on American embassies, because these mass protests make GREAT cover for real al Qaeda terrorist attacks. It's the administration minimizing this that is the problem, IMO.

You know, al Quaeda attacked TWO embassies and a Navy ship and another administration minimized all that........and then they bombed New York. So I don't think we should minimize attacks on embassies any more.

[red states rule]

I don't know what the White House could have done, live video stream from a drone or not: it all happened within minutes and Libya is very far away.

I think the point of the Libya furor is that first they denied adequate security to the embassy, and second they pretended that this was somehow a deserved protest against some movie by some person who may well have been in on the al Qaeda plot. However, it was an organized attack on 9/11 with rockets, and now Zawahiri is calling for more "protests" on American embassies, because these mass protests make GREAT cover for real al Qaeda terrorist attacks. It's the administration minimizing this that is the problem, IMO.

You know, al Quaeda attacked TWO embassies and a Navy ship and another administration minimized all that........and then they bombed New York. So I don't think we should minimize attacks on embassies any more.

Eh, how about sending in troops that could have been there in less then ONE HOUR. This is what happens when libs are put in charge and they think that being nice to terrorists will solve the problem

and they fact they are lying every chance they get while the families of the victims are demanding answers and are being ignored for political reasons

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So you are thinking, Tyr-Ziu, that the big issue will be a crooked moderator trying to hijack the debate for Obama; but handicapped by Obama not being a good speaker if he doesn't have a speech fed to him.

And you think one of the issues Romney will bring up is the terrorist attack on our ambassador and staff in Libya, and the dubious White House mislabeling of it as a "protest."

I think obama's lies will be highlighted by Romney presenting the truth. The Libya scandal will get great attention because it clearly reveals that obama's foreign policy has been greatly flawed and entirely toO supportive of the muslim scourge taking over governments there.
Also obama's contempt for Israel and HIS MISHANDLING OF THE IRAN NUKE PROBLEM!
FOR ITS CLEAR TO ME THAT OBAMA WANTS IRAN TO GET NUKES AND HE DELIBERATELY TRIES TO STALL ISREAL TAKING ACTION TO STOP IT.

This debate has the potential to destroy obama if Romney is not greatly damaged by the moderator, which he will be. Its just a matter of how cleverly they do that IMHO.-TYR

[red states rule]

I think obama's lies will be highlighted by Romney presenting the truth. The Libya scandal will get great attention because it clearly reveals that obama's foreign policy has been greatly flawed and entirely toO supportive of the muslim scourge taking over governments there.
Also obama's contempt for Israel and HIS MISHANDLING OF THE IRAN NUKE PROBLEM!
FOR ITS CLEAR TO ME THAT OBAMA WANTS IRAN TO GET NUKES AND HE DELIBERATELY TRIES TO STALL ISREAL TAKING ACTION TO STOP IT.

This debate has the potential to destroy obama if Romney is not greatly damaged by the moderator, which he will be. Its just a matter of how cleverly they do that IMHO.-TYR

You have to remember Try Mundame will not vote for Mitt because he is a - gasp - a Mormon. It is just as bad as people who will vote for Obama simply because he is black and not his policies

So no matter what Mitt does, Mundame wil see it in a bad light

[Abbey Marie]

Monday night is the third and last debate, in Florida. It's on "Foreign Policy," meaning generally our relations with other nations.

The other two debates have been very powerful vote-movers, and I expect this one to be a big vote-mover too.

For Obama, I think his main problem is that he's vulnerable to Romney using the phrases "I'll never bow to any other country" and "My administration will never apologize to America," since the bowing and apologizing he did were very unpopular here.

For Romney, I think he has to reassure the public that he isn't a warmonger and is not in the pay of Israel: that visit to Israel did NOT look good, with Bibi constantly pressing, "Let's you and him fight!" Also not to threaten to draw out yet, yet longer our losing Forever Wars in Afghanistan and other worthless sandpits.

I think women in particular are heartily sick of all these pointless wars that are driving the country into deep deficits and dependency on China. Romney somehow reversed a lot of the female opposition to him in earlier debates, and he needs to be careful not to drive women right back to Obama by seeming too enthusiastic about war, war, war. More women vote than men do, so we are an important voting bloc, and women are in general not enthusiastic about Forever Wars, I think, so he needs to reassure the public that he is not a warmonger, and Obama needs to try to paint him as aggressive.

Do others have ideas on the important foreign issues that this last debate might cover?

Mundame, interesting question from you, as I would guess that you are probably hoping they both fall flat on their faces. My impression is that you've made pretty clear your disdain for both parties. Am I wrong?

[red states rule]

Mundame, interesting question from you, as I would guess that you are probably hoping they both fall flat on their faces. My impression is that you've made pretty clear your disdain for both parties. Am I wrong?

Abbey, I think in this case, she only has a distain for Mormons

[PostmodernProphet]

personally I think the economy is a far bigger issue than foreign policy....I don't expect Obama to survive a close examination of his middle east policy tomorrow, but I don't think that's going to have as big an impact on voters as his failure to defend his domestic policy.......

[mundame]

obama's contempt for Israel and HIS MISHANDLING OF THE IRAN NUKE PROBLEM!
FOR ITS CLEAR TO ME THAT OBAMA WANTS IRAN TO GET NUKES AND HE DELIBERATELY TRIES TO STALL ISREAL TAKING ACTION TO STOP IT.

As I think you know, Tyr, I am a great fan of your point of view about the terrible danger our culture and country is in from the Muslim rise.

That said, I am interested in your point above --- you are saying that Obama actively WANTS Iran to get nuclear weapons.

There could only be two reasons for that, if it were true: 1) that Obama IS a Muslim, and one who wants them to win and us to lose; and/or 2) that he hates Israel and wants them destroyed.


I guess I don't go that far. (Although I do suspect Obama is a Muslim. Well, he was born a Muslim, educated in a Muslim school, had a Muslim father ----- duh, how much evidence does one really need?)

I don't think that this or any administration of either party WANTS Iran to get nukes, because that would just cause lots more trouble in the Mideast, and we sure don't need more trouble there than we've already got.

I think the Obama White House may, however, be willing to tolerate it, because they can't stop it short of war. The ha-ha "sanctions" haven't worked; they never do. See: North Korea. The big concept I've learned in late years is that politicians regularly kick really big problems down the road, down the road further --- because further down the road they'll be out of office! And it won't be their problem anymore. Delay solves a LOT of problems --- for the politician. Financial bubbles are like that: kick it down the road, pretend it isn't happening. The European Union lies of periphery countries to get more money: kick it down the road. It might be a problem later, but not right now.

Iran's nuke capacity needs taking out, but it IS a dangerous situation and could cause WWIII, especially with the whole Arab world riled up now. So Obama is delaying --- just like Britain and France delayed when Hitler decided to rearm, against the WWI treaty. No problem here; everyone be quiet; he probably doesn't mean all that talk about war....... but he did mean it.

Iran does need taking out. People always mean what they say, and Iran says they mean to destroy Israel and us as soon as they can.

However, if Romney SAYS that tomorrow night at the debate, I think he'll lose the election. Because people are tired of all these losing wars.

[mundame]

Abbey, I think in this case, she only has a distain for Mormons

Generally, Abbey, RSR is right: I cannot in conscience vote for a Mormon for president (I've studied this strange religion a lot, and you don't want to know.....). So I won't vote this year. But it makes me mad that the GOP put up such a candidate.


I'm not happy with all the losing war, war, wars of the Republicans --- that's why I re-registered Independent in 2006. Winning wars, okay. Losing wars, bad.

And this year I am not happy with the War Against Women that is going on at all levels of the Republican Party! Darn, more women vote than men, and yet all the GOP can think to do is get a hate on women??

Braindead.

Yes, of course, if Libertarians actually got their act together -- or the Tea Party actually formed a real party -- or other conservative parties went big league, I would shift over in a New York Minute from the GOP to whatever. But that didn't happen. Darn.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As I think you know, Tyr, I am a great fan of your point of view about the terrible danger our culture and country is in from the Muslim rise.

That said, I am interested in your point above --- you are saying that Obama actively WANTS Iran to get nuclear weapons.

There could only be two reasons for that, if it were true: 1) that Obama IS a Muslim, and one who wants them to win and us to lose; and/or 2) that he hates Israel and wants them destroyed.


I guess I don't go that far. (Although I do suspect Obama is a Muslim. Well, he was born a Muslim, educated in a Muslim school, had a Muslim father ----- duh, how much evidence does one really need?)

I don't think that this or any administration of either party WANTS Iran to get nukes, because that would just cause lots more trouble in the Mideast, and we sure don't need more trouble there than we've already got.

I think the Obama White House may, however, be willing to tolerate it, because they can't stop it short of war. The ha-ha "sanctions" haven't worked; they never do. See: North Korea. The big concept I've learned in late years is that politicians regularly kick really big problems down the road, down the road further --- because further down the road they'll be out of office! And it won't be their problem anymore. Delay solves a LOT of problems --- for the politician. Financial bubbles are like that: kick it down the road, pretend it isn't happening. The European Union lies of periphery countries to get more money: kick it down the road. It might be a problem later, but not right now.

Iran's nuke capacity needs taking out, but it IS a dangerous situation and could cause WWIII, especially with the whole Arab world riled up now. So Obama is delaying --- just like Britain and France delayed when Hitler decided to rearm, against the WWI treaty. No problem here; everyone be quiet; he probably doesn't mean all that talk about war....... but he did mean it.

Iran does need taking out. People always mean what they say, and Iran says they mean to destroy Israel and us as soon as they can.

However, if Romney SAYS that tomorrow night at the debate, I think he'll lose the election. Because people are tired of all these losing wars.

Romney will have to show support for Israel because not only is that the Conservative/Christian stand its also the Republican stand on that. Also Iran getting nukes not only endangers Israel but America and Europe as well.
America simply must face this threat and find a way to stop Iran from getting the nukes. I agree that obama himself sees no problem with Iran having nukes and thats because he is muslim, the man stated in an interview 2008, "my Islamic faith" ! The interviewer had to correct him with , you mean your Christian faith! When has anybody made that kind of mistake, declaring the wrong faith by mistake? It wasnt a mistake , it was however a slip where he let the truth of what he was hiding out. The media basicly ignored it after that.


In short, I firmly believe that obama goes for both 1 and 2 that you listed but he has to be very careful how he does it. After the election if he is still there no need to be careful as by law he can not have a third term so expect all living hell to break loose on us. I'd bet my life on it..-Tyr