The Real Mitt Romney

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

liberal and socialist are not interchangeable terms.

And none of what you describe is what i would consider either 'true liberalism' or 'true socialism'. You, as a conservative have every right to define what is or is not true conservatism. You don't get to define the same for the other side.

No, but they can fit into one box - the anti - Conservative box.

I don't live in an apple tree, but I still know what an apple is, thank you. If apples were quite rare, I'd agree with you, but when they're everywhere you look, like liberalism and socialism, you get to know them.

Please, define "True Liberalism" and "True Socialism", but let's do that in a new thread devoted to that topic.

Turkey: That's a good example of what I'm talking about! He's addressing a country that slaughtered the Armenians in the first act of (really major) genocide, in modern times, and refuses to this day to recognize it. And he's talking about the darker period in OUR history??

Wait a second, here!

Saying it once, or saying it in a more private setting, would be OK. Going around the world with basically the same "apology" template in his VERY public speeches, is WAY off the mark.

It may be good for a human (and a country), to acknowledge their shortcomings to themselves, but to proclaim them to the world, all around the world, is unwise, unnecessary, and makes us look like our Commander in Chief is our chief apologist, and ripe for a bit of exploitation.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Turkey: That's a good example of what I'm talking about! He's addressing a country that slaughtered the Armenians in the first act of (really major) genocide, in modern times, and refuses to this day to recognize it. And he's talking about the darker period in OUR history??

That was his point. Turkey refuses to acknowledge a darker period in their history, and when encouraging them to do so Obama acknowledges a darker period in our history, showing that a mature country can do it.

And you and Romney complain that he's not following Turkey's lead instead?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That was his point. Turkey refuses to acknowledge a darker period in their history, and when encouraging them to do so Obama acknowledges a darker period in our history, showing that a mature country can do it.

And you and Romney complain that he's not following Turkey's lead instead?

Put on your foreign policy hat for a moment. Understand that to many politicians, around the world, the foreign policy they use is based on a zero sum game: your nation's loss, is my nation's gain (or at least, could be).

So, especially for the U.S., if you travel 'round the world making statements that are taken for introspective reflections of a weak moment, nations that are watching very carefully, react accordingly.

This is the problem that Carter got into with Iran. They saw him as weak (in his military attitude), and decided to overrun the embassy in Tehran, and take our personnel hostages for over a year.

Clinton had some of the same problem in Africa, and in dealing with Osama Bin Laden. Things were going well here, and he just didn't put much effort into finding those responsible for attacks on our embassies in Africa, etc. Clinton says "I would have killed Osama, if I could have found him".

Well Bill, you won't find him, because you're not looking very much. Bin Laden was 6ft. 4inches or so, and in the Middle East, that stands out. You could have found him. Also, he's pretty famous thereabouts.

It's all fine to be a historian, and reflect on these things, in private, or even in a book. It's not fine to go around the world, and do it, as the representative of your country, in public speeches.

No American voted for Obama, to be our apologist. He is our President, damnit! He can apologize until he's blue in the face, when he becomes a private citizen again.

"A time for every purpose under heaven". This was a poor time to reflect on the shortcomings of America's past.

P.S. Almost every nation has had slavery at some time or other. It's not like we were the only one's using it. Same with the Native Americans. They drove weaker tribes off the lands they wanted, whenever they deemed it wise to do so. Some tribes were completely destroyed.

The Sioux for example, were weaker, at one time, and were driven out of their homelands by the stronger Sac and Fox tribe (Mesquakie-Sauk), onto the plains. Many died from starvation (they were eating grass to survive, at times), before they learned the new skills they needed to survive.

The Indians understood completely. That was their practice, as well, (to drive out their enemies from land they wanted), for thousands of years. And no, they were not gentle about it.

We learned better torture techniques, from the Indians (without any equipment). We learned the practice of taking scalps, and drying them on little hoops, from the Indians.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

So, especially for the U.S., if you travel 'round the world making statements that are taken for introspective reflections of a weak moment, nations that are watching very carefully, react accordingly.

Countries do not base their foreign policy on rhetoric. At least Russia, China, Iran, or Pakistan don't.

This is the problem that Carter got into with Iran. They saw him as weak (in his military attitude), and decided to overrun the embassy in Tehran, and take our personnel hostages for over a year.

Not true.

It's all fine to be a historian, and reflect on these things, in private, or even in a book. It's not fine to go around the world, and do it, as the representative of your country, in public speeches.

Admitting past mistakes is often seen as a sign of strength, not weakness. I don't know of anyone outside the US who saw those speeches as a sign of weakness. Only Republicans do.

No American voted for Obama, to be our apologist. He is our President, damnit! He can apologize until he's blue in the face, when he becomes a private citizen again.

He never apologized. You are wrong.

"A time for every purpose under heaven". This was a poor time to reflect on the shortcomings of America's past. \

Disagree. There are two types of power: hard power and soft power. Obama's speeches, along with other things, gave the US a huge boost in soft power. I can almost guarantee that McCain would not be able to get as tough of sanctions against Iran as Obama did.

P.S. Almost every nation has had slavery at some time or other. It's not like we were the only one's using it. Same with the Native Americans. They drove weaker tribes off the lands they wanted, whenever they deemed it wise to do so. Some tribes were completely destroyed.

So why are you insecure about admitting it if everyone did it?

The Indians understood completely. That was their practice, as well, (to drive out their enemies from land they wanted), for thousands of years. And no, they were not gentle about it.

We learned better torture techniques, from the Indians (without any equipment). We learned the practice of taking scalps, and drying them on little hoops, from the Indians.

Good thing we don't live in the pre-1800's, huh?