Romney = Cheney: Redux

[Rohirrim]

This was printed in Foreign Policy back in July:

As Romney considers possible running mates, it's worth remembering that he pointed to Dick Cheney as the "kind of person I'd like to have" working with him. Likewise, the policies that Romney has advocated -- like indefinitely leaving our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example -- are continuations of the Bush-Cheney doctrine, version 2.0.

It's no secret that Cheney was the driving force behind the Bush administration's failed foreign policies: starting the war in Iraq with no plan to finish it, bullying our allies around the world, and watching while Iran and North Korea moved forward with their nuclear programs because the Bush White House couldn't bring the international community together to confront these threats.

Out of Romney's 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it's likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity -- a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/12/the_romney_cheney_doctrine?page=full

[Rohirrim]

Here's the wrap-up:

A Romney presidency promises to take us back to something all too familiar: a Bush-Cheney doctrine -- equal parts naïve and cavalier -- which eagerly embraces military force without fully considering the consequences. That "attack now and figure it out later" mindset had disastrous consequences for our country. We can't afford to go back to the failed policies of the past, not when we've come so far and had so much success. America's security depends on moving forward to confront the threats of the future. That's what's at stake in this election.

[peacepipe]

same policies as GWB,just a differant puppet.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

Give it an hour or two, and Willard will change positions re: all of the above.

Good thing his supporters don't care what he really stands for or what his actual plans are.

All that matters is that Thurston is white, rich, and has an 'R' after his name.

[Rohirrim]

A year from now, this idiot could have us in Iran, which has been the #1 target of these neo-cons for many years.

[SoCalBronco]

A year from now, this idiot could have us in Iran, which has been the #1 target of these neo-cons for many years.

Yes, I am concerned about this as well. Romney hasn't delivered more than mere platitudes in foreign affairs so far and outside of that, its been mainly belligerence. The only time I was truly impressed with a foreign policy statement was when Ryan said to put boots on the ground, it would have to be in the US's national interest, rather than say mere humanitarian concerns. I liked that alot, but still there wasn't much detail there and the general aura of belligerence towards China and Russia still comes through in Romney's statements. I'm not saying there is no reason to be belligerent, as these countries are threats, but there are better ways to go about finding common ground and defusing situations than trying to poke them in the eye upfront.

[orinjkrush]

we never vote for "a guy". we always vote for the TEAM. if the repugs come back they come back as a team. same with the demonshts. that's why we can't ever make progress, we're always tacking back and forth left and right in superstitious policy directions. we haven't made real progress in wages, liberty, health, energy, economy, foreign affairs in about 50 years now.

we have to vote the non-name recognition party: if you recognize the name, vote for the other guy/gal. otherwise, you're wasting your vote.

[barryr]

Meanwhile Obama has treated long allies of the U.S. like crap, namely England and Israel. Who around world respects the U.S. anymore? Yeah, Obama's foreign policies have been a big hit.

[Obushma]

This was printed in Foreign Policy back in July:

As Romney considers possible running mates, it's worth remembering that he pointed to Dick Cheney as the "kind of person I'd like to have" working with him. Likewise, the policies that Romney has advocated -- like indefinitely leaving our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example -- are continuations of the Bush-Cheney doctrine, version 2.0.

It's no secret that Cheney was the driving force behind the Bush administration's failed foreign policies: starting the war in Iraq with no plan to finish it, bullying our allies around the world, and watching while Iran and North Korea moved forward with their nuclear programs because the Bush White House couldn't bring the international community together to confront these threats.

Out of Romney's 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it's likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity -- a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/12/the_romney_cheney_doctrine?page=full

If Romney were to be elected my biggest fear is that he would appoint John Bolton as SoD. This is one of the reasons i'll never vote Romney.

Whats funny is how a couple progressives and a marxist walk into a thread and complain about GWB's foriegn policy, when Obama has followed the EXACT same policy...except for the fact Obama's drone strikes have killed more innocent civillians then GWB. Obama has kept the largest embasy in the world in Iraq running, he's keeping civilian contractor forces like Blackwater/XE/Academi in Iraq. He told Americans he was closing down Gitmo, Gitmo is running as strong as ever.

Ro, do you even have any ground to stand on?

[Rohirrim]

If Romney were to be elected my biggest fear is that he would appoint John Bolton as SoD. This is one of the reasons i'll never vote Romney.

Whats funny is how a couple progressives and a marxist walk into a thread and complain about GWB's foriegn policy, when Obama has followed the EXACT same policy...except for the fact Obama's drone strikes have killed more innocent civillians then GWB. Obama has kept the largest embasy in the world in Iraq running, he's keeping civilian contractor forces like Blackwater/XE/Academi in Iraq. He told Americans he was closing down Gitmo, Gitmo is running as strong as ever.

Ro, do you even have any ground to stand on?

Since I don't support Obama, the point is moot.

[Rohirrim]

Meanwhile Obama has treated long allies of the U.S. like crap, namely England and Israel. Who around world respects the U.S. anymore? Yeah, Obama's foreign policies have been a big hit.

Why comment when you have no intention of reading the article? Here's what it says:

Obama has demonstrated that he is a strong and coherent leader on foreign policy issues. He kept his promise to end the war in Iraq responsibly. He refocused our efforts on crushing al Qaeda and ordered the bold raid to take out Osama bin Laden. He has repaired our alliances abroad and led the international community in putting the most crippling sanctions on Iran in history. During his tenure, he has also provided more security funding to Israel than any of his predecessors and always stood up for our friend in the international community.

But you're going to ignore that, aren't you? So much easier to just be a spoon fed sheep in a bubble.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When die-hard Republicans tell us they're voting for Romney it just proves how full of sh*t their ideology is.

This man isn't a conservative...hell he isn't even a liberal. He's a flip-flopping sociopath who simply tells people what they want to hear.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/389441_482918885063315_691985735_n.jpg

[elsid13]

If Romney were to be elected my biggest fear is that he would appoint John Bolton as SoD. This is one of the reasons i'll never vote Romney.

Whats funny is how a couple progressives and a marxist walk into a thread and complain about GWB's foriegn policy, when Obama has followed the EXACT same policy...except for the fact Obama's drone strikes have killed more innocent civillians then GWB. Obama has kept the largest embasy in the world in Iraq running, he's keeping civilian contractor forces like Blackwater/XE/Academi in Iraq. He told Americans he was closing down Gitmo, Gitmo is running as strong as ever.

Ro, do you even have any ground to stand on?

I presume you are talking SECDEF when you write SoD. If that the case, if Romney is elected it that position will either Gordon England or Sean O'Keefe.
My money would be on O'Keefe because he is on of Romney advisers on foreign policy and was SECNAV and was acting SECDEF that last 90 days under Bush. Bolton would at State or the National Security Advisor

[Rohirrim]

I'd be curious to know how many Romney supporters favor a military solution for Iran?

[Kaylore]

I'd be curious to know how many Romney supporters favor a military solution for Iran?

I do. But I favor Israel doing it.

[elsid13]

I do. But I favor Israel doing it.

You do realize that the only way we are ensured that their nuclear capabilities are destroyed is to put boots on the ground for major raid. Neither water or air based attack will be able to destroy Iran bunker system they have put into place to protect their processing capabilities.

[Rohirrim]

Maybe Romney can coax the Colin Powell dog and pony show out of retirement? ;D

[SoCalBronco]

I do. But I favor Israel doing it.

I think a ground or air war by anyone could be perilous and possibly a disaster. I would prefer intensifying black projects to destabilize the regime, infiltrate and sabotage their plants and research labs and make their economy scream....and if that doesn't work perhaps some high profile scientists and military officials could go "missing" to get the point across.

[barryr]

Maybe Albright can be sent and get Iran to make all kinds of promises like North Korea and then be in shock and disbelief when they don't keep to some weak, unbinding agreement.

[Kaylore]

I think a ground or air war by anyone could be perilous and possibly a disaster. I would prefer intensifying black projects to destabilize the regime, infiltrate and sabotage their plants and research labs and make their economy scream....and if that doesn't work perhaps some high profile scientists and military officials could go "missing" to get the point across.

My friend works for the CIA. He never tells me anything. The one time he said something was during the primaries right after Ron Paul was explaining his non-interventionist policy. My buddy just shook his head and said "Iran is a problem."

I think we are trying to destablize. I agree, military action is an absolute last resort. The problem is Russia and China are trying to make Iran nuclear. If Iran was doing this in a vacuum, that's one thing, but they're getting LOTS of help.

[Pony Boy]

But wait, Biden said it will never happen and if somehow they do get enough enriched uranium to build a bomb they don't have a weapon to deploy it.

That was enough for me, I'm not worried and my kids and grandkids can relax.

[W*GS]

Why don't you bomb, bomb, bomb Iran fellas go over there and do it yourselves?

[houghtam]

Why don't you bomb, bomb, bomb Iran fellas go over there and do it yourselves?

They wouldn't have the balls.

Neither would I, but then again, I'm not warmongering.

[razorwire77]

The chicken-hawks are really underestimating what a war with Iran would be like. Iran ain't Iraq or Afghanistan (although the neo-cons seems to like to lump all them there Muslimy Araby countries together.) They have a highly trained and skilled standing army and the infrastructure in place to ensure a lengthy, costly, and brutal conflict.The instability it would bring about between the nuclear world US, China, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, the EU nations and India would be incalculable.

It would make Vietnam look like Desert Storm. We're talking as close the modern warfare version of WWIII as you can get. It would devastate the global economy as well.

Of course that's what a huge swath of the far right and fundamentalists in general want if you get down to it. "Onward Christian soldiers," right? "Kill the Infidels", right? The ultimate battle royale for the Holy lands . The end days is upon us. Let's get this party started, so I can get off this rock and get me through the pearly gates, or get me 40 virgins.

[TonyR]

There are many things that aren’t Romney’s “natural” subjects, but he doesn’t struggle with any other kind of policy as much as he struggles with this one. As a former governor, it is understandable that he prefers talking about domestic policy issues, but favoring this preference has caused him to neglect foreign policy to a remarkable degree for someone who has been running for president since 2006. Until now, most voters likely haven’t noticed the result of this neglect, but they will see it in Monday’s debate. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/will-the-foreign-policy-debate-sink-romney/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=will-the-foreign-policy-debate-sink-romney

[TonyR]

[W]hat is Mitt Romney's primary criticism of Barack Obama on foreign policy? It's that Obama allegedly "apologizes for America" (he hasn't actually ever apologized for America, but you'll forgive me if I don't have the energy to debunk that one for the millionth time). In short, it's that Mitt Romney thinks Obama says things that aren't right. What's the problem with Obama's policy toward Israel? There's "daylight" between us and Israel! What kind of daylight? Why, rhetorical daylight. The worst kind.

Monday's debate is going to be an absolute festival of this kind of ridiculousness. Maybe if we're lucky Obama will come up with some clever way to move the discussion toward what we should do, instead of just what we should say. http://prospect.org/article/its-all-words

[Rohirrim]

The chicken-hawks are really underestimating what a war with Iran would be like. Iran ain't Iraq or Afghanistan (although the neo-cons seems to like to lump all them there Muslimy Araby countries together.) They have a highly trained and skilled standing army and the infrastructure in place to ensure a lengthy, costly, and brutal conflict.The instability it would bring about between the nuclear world US, China, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, the EU nations and India would be incalculable.

It would make Vietnam look like Desert Storm. We're talking as close the modern warfare version of WWIII as you can get. It would devastate the global economy as well.

Of course that's what a huge swath of the far right and fundamentalists in general want if you get down to it. "Onward Christian soldiers," right? "Kill the Infidels", right? The ultimate battle royale for the Holy lands . The end days is upon us. Let's get this party started, so I can get off this rock and get me through the pearly gates, or get me 40 virgins.

Not to mention, you start a land war with Iran and every psycho Islamic fundamentalist in the world flocks to their banner, from Pakistan, Africa, Asia, etc. etc. etc. There's also the likelihood that they would take out the Saudi oil fields toot suite. What do you think happens to the world's economy then? Iran ain't Afghanistan and they're not Iraq. Iraq pulled a sneak attack on Iran and the Iranians stopped them cold. They then fought in trenches for 8 years and lost 250,000 men and still wouldn't surrender. Yeah. It would be a smart move. Oh, BTW, from what I read, the sanctions are working. Of course, that's what we were saying before the neocons invaded Iraq, isn't it?.

[orinjkrush]

I think a ground or air war by anyone could be perilous and possibly a disaster. I would prefer intensifying black projects to destabilize the regime, infiltrate and sabotage their plants and research labs and make their economy scream....and if that doesn't work perhaps some high profile scientists and military officials could go "missing" to get the point across.

totally agree. we should take a page from the muslim war book: think global and kill local. cartoonist? dead. editor? dead. burn holy book? dead.

nuclear scientist? dead. revolutionary guard? dead. military computer scientist? dead. anybody got any spare polonium 210?

this would be a whole lot more effective and humane than millions of collateral dead Iranians and thousands of US troops.

[razorwire77]

Not to mention, you start a land war with Iran and every psycho Islamic fundamentalist in the world flocks to their banner, from Pakistan, Africa, Asia, etc. etc. etc. There's also the likelihood that they would take out the Saudi oil fields toot suite. What do you think happens to the world's economy then? Iran ain't Afghanistan and they're not Iraq. Iraq pulled a sneak attack on Iran and the Iranians stopped them cold. They then fought in trenches for 8 years and lost 250,000 men and still wouldn't surrender. Yeah. It would be a smart move. Oh, BTW, from what I read, the sanctions are working. Of course, that's what we were saying before the neocons invaded Iraq, isn't it?.

Oh yeah. There would be hundreds of thousands of suicide bombers ready to martyr themselves. You'd deal with waves and waves of them and that would be in addition to a formidable Iranian military with a long and storied history of bloody insurrections going back thousands of years to camels and swords. But I'm sure we'd shock and awe our way right through'em, until we were greeted as liberators! Six months there and we're in and out, no biggie. Better take them on unilaterally as well.

[elsid13]

Oh yeah. There would be hundreds of thousands of suicide bombers ready to martyr themselves. You'd deal with waves and waves of them and that would be in addition to a formidable Iranian military with a long and storied history of bloody insurrections going back thousands of years to camels and swords. But I'm sure we'd shock and awe our way right through'em, until we were greeted as liberators! Six months there and we're in and out, no biggie. Better take them on unilaterally as well.

The Iranian conventional forces are not very formidable, years of sanctions have caused serious logistic challenges. If the US and it's allies decide to attack, there would set backs but we would able to destroy their conventional ability to wage war. The challenge, as you pointed out is their ability to wage a proxy war through the terror groups they have funded and trained.

[razorwire77]

The Iranian conventional forces are not very formidable, years of sanctions have caused serious logistic challenges. If the US and it's allies decide to attack, there would set backs but we would able to destroy their conventional ability to wage war. The challenge, as you pointed out is their ability to wage a proxy war through the terror groups they have funded and trained.

We're talking comparatives though. Compared to Iraq, or Afghanistan it's significantly more formidable. That's in addition to the historical difficulties associated with being an invading force in the Middle East. They'd bleed us for years and years and years and years. A war with Iran would bankrupt the country in a way that would make our current excursions look minor. We're talking Soviet Union in 1991 bankrupt.

[Garcia Bronco]

A year from now, this idiot could have us in Iran, which has been the #1 target of these neo-cons for many years.

That's going to happen regardless because Israel will not allow Iran to create a nuke with or without us. The only way we keep that from happening is by staying over there.

[SoCalBronco]

We're talking comparatives though. Compared to Iraq, or Afghanistan it's significantly more formidable. That's in addition to the historical difficulties associated with being an invading force in the Middle East. They'd bleed us for years and years and years and years. A war with Iran would bankrupt the country in a way that would make our current excursions look minor. We're talking Soviet Union in 1991 bankrupt.

Agreed. That's why covert ops and selective assassinations would be far cheaper and more efficient. Just destabilize...no need for boots on the ground.

[razorwire77]

That's going to happen regardless because Israel will not allow Iran to create a nuke with or without us.

The majority of Israels do not support a preemptive strike on Iran. A Haaretz poll found something like 60 percent of Israelis did not want to attack Iran unilaterally. Now if President Romney and his merry band of chicken-hawk foreign-policy advisers press the issue, then yeah I could see it happening.

[elsid13]

We're talking comparatives though. Compared to Iraq, or Afghanistan it's significantly more formidable. That's in addition to the historical difficulties associated with being an invading force in the Middle East. They'd bleed us for years and years and years and years. A war with Iran would bankrupt the country in a way that would make our current excursions look minor. We're talking Soviet Union in 1991 bankrupt.

You're making the assumption that it is going to involve an occupation and stability operations. If the decision was made to preventing Iran ability to go nuclear we are talking about limit objectives vs complete regime change. It won't be pretty and won't be easy but it is within our capability to do so in short time frame. It should be consider the last option with focus on OOTW first but it we should be prepared to act if required.

[razorwire77]

You're making the assumption that it is going to involve an occupation and stability operations. If the decision was made to preventing Iran ability to go nuclear we are talking about limit objectives vs complete regime change. It won't be pretty and won't be easy but it is within our capability to do so in short time frame. It should be consider the last option with focus on OOTW first but it we should be prepared to act if required.

And you think that Romney surrounded by a room full of neo-conservative advisers stuck in a 1983 military mindset are going to take that approach? We'd have a balls out/tank out "America F**k Yeah" full on invasion before you could say "Turrorist."

And the "liberal" news media would be right there to cover the entire play-by-play on Twitter.

[elsid13]

And you think that Romney surrounded by a room full of neo-conservative advisers stuck in a 1983 military mindset are going to take that approach? We'd have a balls out/tank out "America **** Yeah" full on invasion before you could say "Turrorist."

And the "liberal" news media would be right there to cover the entire play-by-play on Twitter.

I expect that crew to invade Mexico and tell us that they need to protect us from illegal voters.

[Rohirrim]

I'm sure the neocons can't wait to apply the Wolfowitz Doctrine to Iran.

[barryr]

I expect that crew to invade Mexico and tell us that they need to protect us from illegal voters.

Or sell guns to Mexico gangs that lead to many deaths, even kids at a school in Mexico...oops, that already happened under Obama.

[Rohirrim]

Or sell guns to Mexico gangs that lead to many deaths, even kids at a school in Mexico...oops, that already happened under Obama.

I'm surprised that you would come out in favor of gun control.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Or sell guns to Mexico gangs that lead to many deaths, even kids at a school in Mexico...oops, that already happened under Obama.

You're about as credible as the bullsh*t salesman you support. ::)

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/404674_483353558353181_1409950939_n.jpg

[ZONA]

Meanwhile Obama has treated long allies of the U.S. like crap, namely England and Israel. Who around world respects the U.S. anymore? Yeah, Obama's foreign policies have been a big hit.

Your high dude. Obama has helped our image. Before, we were seen as nothing but money sucking war mongers who wanted to invade your country and steal it's oil. Yeah, your're right, to end 10 year wars that were started for no reason is so bad for our image. Again, I respect people different political views but, and this does go on with both sides, when people just spew stupid crap like this. Say you don't like some of his foreign policy but to say our "world image" is worse is about the most stupid thing I've heard in such a long time.

[barryr]

Your high dude. Obama has helped our image. Before, we were seen as nothing but money sucking war mongers who wanted to invade your country and steal it's oil. Yeah, your're right, to end 10 year wars that were started for no reason is so bad for our image. Again, I respect people different political views but, and this does go on with both sides, when people just spew stupid crap like this. Say you don't like some of his foreign policy but to say our "world image" is worse is about the most stupid thing I've heard in such a long time.

LOL, he's helped our image? You liberals still like to claim our country is racist despite a guy like Obama, with little credentials and one of the least qualified to ever become president in modern times. We stole Iraq's oil? So we own all of that country's oil? I must have missed that one. Talking about "stealing oil" when that country still owns it is what I call stupid, not to mention a lie. We still have troops in Afghanistan and Gitmo is still open, things liberals not long ago believed were recruiting tools for terrorists. But I guess that suddenly has changed. Oh, how unpartisan of you ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

Barryr lives in a fact-free Fox News bubble...

Anti-Americanism has declined across the world since Barack Obama's election (http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/home/2009/08/antiamericanism-has-declined-across-the-world-since-barack-obamas-election.html)

http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/.a/6a00e553af4af188330120a52be33d970b-320wi (http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/.a/6a00e553af4af188330120a52be33d970b-pi)

Late last month the Pew Global Attitudes Project published (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264) its regular polling on global attitudes toward the USA.

The increases in 'US favourability' are particularly substantial in France, Germany, Spain and, outside Europe, in Indonesia.

America led by Obama has maintained support in parts of the world where George W Bush was reasonably popular. See the graph opposite for resilient or improving numbers in India, Japan, Israel and throughout Africa.
What the Obama administration has yet to prove is that increased favourability translates into concrete gains for American policy goals. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is sceptical (http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/notablearguments/2009/08/being-popular-abroad-does-not-necessarily-bring-america-influence.html).

[barryr]

^

Barryr lives in a fact-free Fox News bubble...

Anti-Americanism has declined across the world since Barack Obama's election (http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/home/2009/08/antiamericanism-has-declined-across-the-world-since-barack-obamas-election.html)

http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/.a/6a00e553af4af188330120a52be33d970b-320wi (http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/.a/6a00e553af4af188330120a52be33d970b-pi)

Late last month the Pew Global Attitudes Project published (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264) its regular polling on global attitudes toward the USA.

The increases in 'US favourability' are particularly substantial in France, Germany, Spain and, outside Europe, in Indonesia.

America led by Obama has maintained support in parts of the world where George W Bush was reasonably popular. See the graph opposite for resilient or improving numbers in India, Japan, Israel and throughout Africa.
What the Obama administration has yet to prove is that increased favourability translates into concrete gains for American policy goals. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is sceptical (http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/notablearguments/2009/08/being-popular-abroad-does-not-necessarily-bring-america-influence.html).

Maybe because they are too busy laughing at our country to hate.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Maybe because they are too busy laughing at our country to hate.

I guess this is a shortcut to admitting your claim was BS, eh? ::)

[houghtam]

I guess this is a shortcut to admitting your claim was BS, eh? ::)

Take a picture. That's as close to admitting he's wrong you'll ever get.

Of course, we have facts on our side, so we don't really need to keep his statement to prove he was wrong, but whatever.

[barryr]

Yeah, the terrorists in Libya are so scared. News to liberals who think Obama is just so darn tough.


Suspect in Libya attack, in plain sight, scoffs at U.S.

Witnesses and the authorities have called Ahmed Abu Khattala one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission here. But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping mango juice on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments…

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/10/19/suspect-in-libya-attack-in-plain-sight-scoffs-at-u-s/

[ZONA]

I guess this is a shortcut to admitting your claim was BS, eh? ::)

barryr could not say anything substantial to the chart so he just comes up with some stupid comment instead of intelligently trying to explain why he thinks our image is worse, or better yet, show some material that proves your point. He can't. It's not out there. And for your info barryr, I'm more middle then left or right. I've voted Rep and Demo the past 16 years so take that and do something with it. Yeah, you see there. An independent like myself thinks Romney is a very bad thing for this nation and I happen to think what Obama has done has our world image better then it was during the Bush years. So you see, your a die hard righty and your perspective is skewed. Mine is not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Agreed. That's why covert ops and selective assassinations would be far cheaper and more efficient. Just destabilize...no need for boots on the ground.

Because that worked out so well with the Shah... ::)

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/304425_546505142041668_1170279222_n.jpg