AthenaAwakened

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...ama/?mobile=nc

Harry Bosch

A pretty big difference. If Romney is elected, we'll probably be going to war with Iran. And the pullout of Afganistan will probably stall. Romney has stated that he thought it a mistake to pull out of Iraq. Although, I think that it's too late to go back to Iraq. Romney seems to be taking a harder line on China, wants to "significantly" increase military spending. It also appears that Romney will take a much harder line against Russia (someone explain to me why???)

AthenaAwakened

Now if you have been paying attention, then you know these things. But if you are just tuning in, say since the conventions or worse, since the debate, then you don't know anything but what you are hearing now.

And now, Romney is saying this

boneyard bill

That view seems to be seconded here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...cy_115713.html

Basically Romney is saying that he'll do the same things as Obama, but somehow he will be tougher about it. Essentially it amounts, unfortunately, to a backhanded endorsement of Obama's policies since a better implementation of the wrong policies would be that much worse wouldn't it?

Of course, this is typical American politics. The two parties rarely offer any fundamental change in policy and when they do, as Obama did in 2008, they don't implement them anyway.

Is there a dime's worth of difference? Given our inflationary economic policies it might come down that much but only because of the declining value of dimes.

boneyard bill

But let's not confuse rhetoric with action. The Israeli's have upped the pressure on Obama to attack Iran because they think Romney would be less likely to do so. This isn't because they don't like Romney but because they understand that a new president tends to be very cautious well into his first term. But attacking Iran would be idiotic. Even Israel's military and intelligence establishment is saying that. So an attack on Iran is unlikely despite whether the tough talk comes from Romney or Obama. And note that Romney did not say anything about bombing Iran or even a statement like, "All options are on the table" which Obama stated specifically in the 2008 campaign.

Romney may have thought it was a mistake to pull out of Iraq, but so did Obama. He tried to get the Iraqis to agree to an extension of the SOFA agreement that Bush had negotiated. The Iraqis refused so Obama withdrew, not according to his own timetable, but to the timetable negotiated by his predecessor.

Again, Romney's rhetoric on China is tougher, but it mostly concerns trade matters. It's pure demogoguery. We have no chance of winning any WTO suit against China. The yuan has RISEN against the dollar by 30% over the last decade. Romney has to know that this is not a viable option. He's playing to a vulnerable and uninformed electorate.

Obama pulled our anti-missile defenses out of Czechoslovakia to station them on ships off-shore. If one wants to call that a "concession" to Russia, then Obama has been soft. But it's the only discernable concession that I'm aware of. Romney calls this a withdrawal ignoring the point that the missiles have merely been re-stationed. Again, this is merely a demagogic appeal to the ignorance of American voters. The distinction is rhetorical, not substantive.

Of course, I agree that our hard line against Russia makes no sense. I just don't see where it has softened significantly under Obama. It makes no sense because American foreign policy is not based on sense. It's determined by special interests just like our domestic policy is. The representatives of those interests own homes in Washingon, they don't rent. They will still be there under Romney who gets his campaign donations from pretty much the same sources that Obama does.