• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Romney said he gives Obama an "F" grade on Foreign Policy

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

gevorg

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2004
5,075
1
0
There are also active negotiations rather than just posturing by both sides. I'll rate the prospects of a deal as likely, if Bibi can't find a way torpedo the whole thing. With Romney, not so much.
Highly unlikely, the war drums have been rolling for years. Israel is an angel, Iran is the devil. Done deal.

Cyber "warfare" has been an ongoing aspect of intelligence ever since it became possible, and propaganda is as old as the concept of nation states. Sheesh.
Its much more than just intelligence when you use computer viruses to sabotage nuclear reactors. Cyberwarfare can do a lot more damage than leaking/stealing secret documents. As per 2011 Defense Authorization Act, "the United States reserves the right to retaliate with military force against a cyber attack".
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Much higher chance we go to war with Iran with Romney as president.
Not really. No one is going to go to war with Iran because it would create more problems than it would solve. That doesn't mean that there won't be military action but nothing like Iraq.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,747
13,866
136
Highly unlikely, the war drums have been rolling for years. Israel is an angel, Iran is the devil. Done deal.
That doesn't explain why the 5+1 has softened their stance, leaving Netanyahu sputtering desperately. Nor does it explain why anybody would wait until after the completion of the very hardened facility at Fordow, along with Iran's stockpiling of material enriched to 20%. That's well over the hump towards weapons grade material, yet legit since they have a reactor that uses it. Not even the Bushistas were dumb enough or arrogant enough to attack. Unintended consequences are incalculable, which is why it probably won't happen, not even by Israel.

Its much more than just intelligence when you use computer viruses to sabotage nuclear reactors. Cyberwarfare can do a lot more damage than leaking/stealing secret documents. As per 2011 Defense Authorization Act, "the United States reserves the right to retaliate with military force against a cyber attack".
Of course. But nobody has been shown to have done that particular deed, and cyber warfare, by it's very nature, is extremely difficult (likely impossible) to trace back to its origins. Act of War? By Whom?
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
This war against Iran talk is a smoke screen for something much bigger because the U.S. gov could reduce Iran to shambles in a heartbeat. I'm not sure what the bigger thing is, but I'm guessing the Cold War never ended. It's like how there was no "interwar era"... Wilson believed that the world should be in perpetual war and so he got his wish, although the NWO had been set in place long before Wilson... Lincoln's nationalism was part of the New World Order and he advanced Hamilton's goal of one world government immensely. Jefferson tried to counter the NWO when he declared America to be a confederal union (i.e., a nation of free and independent States). Opposing Jefferson were Washington, Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln (the latter four of whom were agents of what would become known officially as the NWO) so they started a nationalist movement that they knew would be detrimental to the American people in hopes that it would one day lead to globalism.
 

gevorg

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2004
5,075
1
0
That doesn't explain why the 5+1 has softened their stance, leaving Netanyahu sputtering desperately. Nor does it explain why anybody would wait until after the completion of the very hardened facility at Fordow, along with Iran's stockpiling of material enriched to 20%. That's well over the hump towards weapons grade material, yet legit since they have a reactor that uses it. Not even the Bushistas were dumb enough or arrogant enough to attack. Unintended consequences are incalculable, which is why it probably won't happen, not even by Israel.
Iraq - mission accomplished
Yemen - done
Tunisia - done
Egypt - done
Lybya - done
Syria - in progress
Iran - in queue

Of course. But nobody has been shown to have done that particular deed, and cyber warfare, by it's very nature, is extremely difficult (likely impossible) to trace back to its origins. Act of War? By Whom?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?_r=1

New World Order
oh, common!
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,747
13,866
136
An anonymously sourced piece on Stuxnet origins doesn't mean that Iran could have pinned it on anybody, or that the US could do so with any cyber attack.

The rest of it? The govts of Yemen, Egypt & Tunisia were friendly to the West, while the outcomes in Iraq & Libya are still very much up in they air. They all are, really. Syria? The possibility of a worse outcome for the West than Assad is quite strong, which is why everybody is staying out of it.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,456
1,457
126
Both my republican parents now in their 80's, Reagan, Bush, Nixon republicans, recently told me they were supporting Obama.
SHOCK!
Why?
Romney has the appearance of a crook.
A crook?
Yes, a crook.
Wow! Never have they voted democrat.
This was news.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Governor Romney giving President Obama an F in foreign policy is like me trying to tell Stephen Hawking that he doesn't know jack shit about math or physics.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I guess Mitt feels we should've put troops on the ground in Libya, bombed Syria and Iran, not gone after Bin Laden in Pakistan, continued the war in Iraq, whatever else stupid thing Mitt would've done.

Only things that come to mind bad that Obama's done in foreign relations are a stupid DVD gift to a dignitary that were America region encoded, a praising of a Polish hero that the Polish state anal retentively bitched about the wording of even though the intent of what Obama said was obvious, and the big one (which is what downgrades him no higher than a B) is Fast and Furious where good intent plus poor execution equals major fuckup.
Most of us didn't like the Magical Apology Tour either, although after he got that out of his system he's been pretty good at foreign policy. The intent of Fast and Furious was anything but good - arming the drug cartels to justify disarming Americans - but I'm not convinced that Obama was behind that. The BATFE (which evidently stands for some arcane spelling of bat shit crazy assholes) has done similar if not quite so egregious rogue operations under several Presidents not nearly so amenable to gun control and may well have done this on their own. Even Holder, while he clearly lied or was honestly if incompetently mistaken about when he knew, might have been briefed well into the operation and unaware of the true extents of the operation. I can see him being told essentially "We're monitoring the movement of legally purchased guns to the cartels in Mexico" rather than "We're facilitating the movement of legally purchased guns, some of which we bought, to the cartels in Mexico, and when people get killed by them we'll have ammo for gun control." May well have nothing to do with Obama, and in any case it's primarily about domestic gun control, not foreign policy. (Proof of this being that the Mexican authorities were not briefed or involved and the BATFE had no assets to track the guns inside Mexico.)
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,747
13,866
136
Most of us didn't like the Magical Apology Tour either, although after he got that out of his system he's been pretty good at foreign policy. The intent of Fast and Furious was anything but good - arming the drug cartels to justify disarming Americans - but I'm not convinced that Obama was behind that. The BATFE (which evidently stands for some arcane spelling of bat shit crazy assholes) has done similar if not quite so egregious rogue operations under several Presidents not nearly so amenable to gun control and may well have done this on their own. Even Holder, while he clearly lied or was honestly if incompetently mistaken about when he knew, might have been briefed well into the operation and unaware of the true extents of the operation. I can see him being told essentially "We're monitoring the movement of legally purchased guns to the cartels in Mexico" rather than "We're facilitating the movement of legally purchased guns, some of which we bought, to the cartels in Mexico, and when people get killed by them we'll have ammo for gun control." May well have nothing to do with Obama, and in any case it's primarily about domestic gun control, not foreign policy. (Proof of this being that the Mexican authorities were not briefed or involved and the BATFE had no assets to track the guns inside Mexico.)
Gawd. Conspiracy theorists jumping to conclusions over gun ownership just reinforces the idea that extreme gun advocates are nuttier than a payday bar.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,456
1,457
126
So now Romney's some teacher handing out grades?
If Romney was the teacher grading my class, I'd drop out.
Next thing Romney will be calling Obama a nig... nig... Nigerian.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY