Romney's foreign policy blunder

United States
October 25, 2012 8:55pm CST
Mitt Romney made a very interesting statement in the last debate. Mitt Romney actually said that the International criminal justice system should put pressure on Ahmadinejad, and he should be indicted by the Genocide Convention. The ironic part of this is that Romney's own foreign policy adviser attacked president Obama when he wanted to do the same of Gadhafi. John Bolton (not to be confused with Michael Bolton), former U.N. Ambassador under Bush called the Convention: "one of the world's most illegitimate multilateral institutions,", and Obama's idea of using this same court: "abdication of responsibility.". Maybe Mitt Romney should explain to the American people why we sent years sending enemy combatants to Gitmo, but now the "Genocide Convention" is the way to go? I know that Mitt is trying to shack his Etch-A-Sketch on foreign policy, but if his own advisers are don't remember this countries history (especially when they were the ones that shaped it) than how is he going to lead this country better than Obama. We all know that Romeny's weakest subject is foreign policy, unless you forgot about his great foreign policy trip where he pissed off just about all of our allies, and now we know his advisers can't remember where they stand on subjects not to mention what he is calling for isn't possible. Is he just making this stuff up? What do you think? http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/white-romney-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
2 responses
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
26 Oct 12
Romney refers to genocide. Qadaffi didn't commit genocide, he was killing political foes, not people of a specific race. However, Obama's allies in Libya were killing black Africans in areas surrounding Tripoli, so they were committing genocide. Ahmadinejad is inciting genocide by his calls to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews in the world. Do you dispute that? I don't think that you can put any past foreign policy decisions in Mitt's record, since he didn't make any of them.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
26 Oct 12
Obama had no foreign policy experience when you elected him and it didn't bother you. Biden had experience, but it's probably useless since he never knows where he is, let alone where anything else is. And how about those nice Muslim Brotherhood rebel allies of Obama who were killing black people? You don't address that. Oh yeah, cause it's inconvenient. Desperate clutching at straw men.
• United States
26 Oct 12
Rollo, you Genocide comment sure didn't work well for you did it? Obama didn't have any experience, and his first experience was viewed as a resounding success. Mitt's first experience was a cluster, pissing off just about every ally we have. Our country has a LONG history of supporting the people and groups who are the lesser of two evils. Remember when Reagan supported some guy named Bin Laden in Afghanistan? How did that work out for the American people? How about Bush Sr.'s support for Saddam? How did that work out for us? Rollo, I am not desperate at all, I am the one with the facts here, you are the one who has Romnesia!!!!!
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Oct 12
Rollo, The Dictionary.com definition of Genocide: "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." He called for his own people to go out into the streets and kill political protestors in their own lair. He used his own military to kill political protestors. I don't know if there has EVER been an easier case to make that someone committed Genocide because he personally ordered it on national airwaves. I am not saying that Ahmadinejad is innocent here, nor am I saying that he should be brought down. But, if his own foreign policy advisers don't consider this a legitimate option, than why does he? Remember, Romney has NO foreign policy experience, which means he will have to rely on his advisers more than Obama would. If his advisers can't stop what is coming out of his mouth, or they are feeding him stuff like this than we are going to have a foreign policy nightmare if, god forbid, Romney is elected!!!!!
• China
26 Oct 12
i think he has a very strong negative attitude towards china,personally speaking i think this is a rather not wisdom act,china is playing a very important part in world trade now,and this negative attitude makes no good ..
@stary1 (6612)
• United States
26 Oct 12
jefflovealan I don't think Romney has a negatve attitude toward China..he has stated he wants good relationships with them and fair trade. The operative word is 'fair' since China manipulates it's currency giving them an unfair advantage. Romney clearly stated China would be a great partner for business as long as the playing field were even. and...welcome to myLOt...this is a great place!!
• United States
26 Oct 12
Romney is all over the board on China (like MOST subjects in this election). He says he wants a good relationship with China, but then says he will attack them as a currency manipulator (which is true, but that is like telling your boss to go F himself, because they hold a large portion of our debt, and continue to loan us money). He also says that he will be hard on China, but he also is making money personally off of companies that are exporting jobs to China. He has been a big supporting of using China to lower cost for his companies, but now all of the sudden he has seen the light? There is one thing you learn in live: If it doesn't PERSONALLY effect you, than you really don't understand it's effects. Coming down hard on China would hurt Romney financially, and if there is one thing we have learned about Romney, it is that money is VERY important to him.