"We can't kill ourselves out of this mess."

[Direckshun]

Was it just me, or did Mitt Romney say something brilliant and prescient?

****ing applause for the man. Easily his wisest line of the entire election season.

Not even kidding.

Mitt Romney, talking about the war on terror, just rejected every ounce of neoconservativism, drone-reliant warfare of civilian casualties to kill battle-aged men in countries full of brown people.

This is something foreign policy doves have been saying since the turn of the millenia. To defeat terrorism, it is not enough to simply murder a requisite number of bad guys.

You've got to exercise a foreign policy that doesn't unnecessarily incite hatred in foreign countries, and turn down the heat on all the rhetoric and much of the unnecessary, counterproductive behavior that feeds recruitment for these foreign countries.

I think this was the best line of the debate. Bar none. And it's something that's been long overdue out of the mouth of a national-level Republican.

I think Obama won the debate and all that jazz, but credit where it's due. Romney found a winner of a line and an idea. I hope it finds a way to spread.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Mitt could be posturing. I think the Establishment, who owns both puppets, wanted both appear less like warmongers. They know where the people stand. Remember Wilson and FDR voiced not wanting to get into two of Europe's wars and never meant it.

I agree that "FDR didn't really mean it" in the sense that he would rather have gone to war if he could, but he had to wait until public opinion supported our joining the war.

Wilson, however, stayed out of the war for three full years, and only got involved when American interests were being directly attacked (the U-Boat campaign on neutral shipping) and it was revealed that Germany was plotting something sinister (and rather absurd) with Mexico. By that point, American popular opinion was very strongly in favor of going to war. Wilson was an idealist, not a warmonger, and wasn't really all that excited about going to war. Wilson meant every word of trying to stay out of the war.

This has been a public service announcement of the Correct BEP's Historical Exaggerations and Outright Misstatements Network.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I agree that "FDR didn't really mean it" in the sense that he would rather have gone to war if he could, but he had to wait until public opinion supported our joining the war.

Wilson, however, stayed out of the war for three full years, and only got involved when American interests were being directly attacked (the U-Boat campaign on neutral shipping) and it was revealed that Germany was plotting something sinister (and rather absurd) with Mexico. By that point, American popular opinion was very strongly in favor of going to war. Wilson was an idealist, not a warmonger, and wasn't really all that excited about going to war. Wilson meant every word of trying to stay out of the war.

This has been a public service announcement of the Correct BEP's Historical Exaggerations and Outright Misstatements Network.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Was it just me, or did Mitt Romney say something brilliant and prescient?

****ing applause for the man. Easily his wisest line of the entire election season.

Not even kidding.

Mitt Romney, talking about the war on terror, just rejected every ounce of neoconservativism, drone-reliant warfare of civilian casualties to kill battle-aged men in countries full of brown people.

This is something foreign policy doves have been saying since the turn of the millenia. To defeat terrorism, it is not enough to simply murder a requisite number of bad guys.

You've got to exercise a foreign policy that doesn't unnecessarily incite hatred in foreign countries, and turn down the heat on all the rhetoric and much of the unnecessary, counterproductive behavior that feeds recruitment for these foreign countries.

I think this was the best line of the debate. Bar none. And it's something that's been long overdue out of the mouth of a national-level Republican.

I think Obama won the debate and all that jazz, but credit where it's due. Romney found a winner of a line and an idea. I hope it finds a way to spread.

Romney was shrewd in how he hit certain notes to win votes. Appear competent, pass the Commander in Chief threshold, appear safe to women (using lines like the one you point out), win VA by claiming we need more boats, etc.

Who knows who wins, but the CP poster who claimed Obama was trying to win a debate and Romney the election was right on.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Romney was shrewd in how he hit certain notes to win votes. Appear competent, pass the Commander in Chief threshold, appear safe to women (using lines like the one you point out), win VA by claiming we need more boats, etc.

Who knows who wins, but the CP poster who claimed Obama was trying to win a debate and Romney the election was right on.

When I was watching the debate in real time, I thought both men deserved a very vanilla B, and each had their own victories. I felt Obama outpaced Romney on substance, which is a victory but expected for a POTUS. Romney kept up for the most part, which is a victory for a governor.

So that was my initial reaction watching the debate. I feel like most shared it, but like you said: who knows. Third debates barely register anyway.

After reading the transcript, though, I feel Obama solidly hammered Romney due to the fact that so much of Romney's FP ended up looking like Obama's.

But when I saw the debate, and when I read the transcript, I absolutely loved that line: we cannot kill ourselves out of this mess.

Absolutely, undeniably true.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Romney was shrewd in how he hit certain notes to win votes. Appear competent, pass the Commander in Chief threshold, appear safe to women (using lines like the one you point out), win VA by claiming we need more boats, etc.

Who knows who wins, but the CP poster who claimed Obama was trying to win a debate and Romney the election was right on.

I never thought about that Virginia thing. That's a clever observation.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I never thought about that Virginia thing. That's a clever observation.

No kidding. That one got by me...

[philfree]

"Wait till after the election and then get a backbone"

Romney should have asked Obama if there was anything he'd like to tell the American people about his policy regarding Russia.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by philfree

"Wait till after the election and then get a backbone"

Romney should have asked Obama if there was anything he'd like to tell the American people about his policy regarding Russia.

Like, we finally achieved the arms deal that every President before me going back to Ronald Reagan failed to score?

[LiveSteam]

[quote=Amnorix;9041939

This has been a public service announcement of the Correct BEP's Historical Exaggerations and Outright Misstatements Network.[/QUOTE]

[Buzz_TinBalls]

so the "two party" role reversal is complete.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

To defeat terrorism, it is not enough to simply murder a requisite number of bad guys.

You've got to exercise a foreign policy that doesn't unnecessarily incite hatred in foreign countries, and turn down the heat on all the rhetoric and much of the unnecessary, counterproductive behavior that feeds recruitment for these foreign countries.

Yes because appeasement and spreading good will will make Hamas renounce its charter, and make Jihadis not want a global Caliphate.

LOL

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Yes because appeasement and spreading good will will make Hamas renounce its charter, and make Jihadis not want a global Caliphate.

So, clearly killing is the only answer we have?

[philfree]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Like, we finally achieved the arms deal that every President before me going back to Ronald Reagan failed to score?

He's going to weaken our country and he's hiding what he entends to do from the American people. I'm not o.k. with that are you?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by philfree

He's going to weaken our country and he's hiding what he entends to do from the American people. I'm not o.k. with that are you?

I was warned of that in 2008 and we're doing alright.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

So, clearly killing is the only answer we have?

Well, if one side has the intention of 'obliteration' of the other, and declares war on the other side...Is it war?

Or do both sides need to declare war?


The problem here is that for one side, PEACE is Israel giving up , and for Israelis to allow Hamas to take over their government essentially...

(Or however you want to imagine Israel ceasing to exist....)

SO really I wish I had an answer to your question....

What DO we do with Jihadis who are bent on murder and violence until Israel ceases to exist?