Can someone explain Romney's speech?

[Lief]

America should apologize. You'd have to be an ignorant jingo to think otherwise. We've been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of innocent people, as well as the destabilization and impoverishment of countless states and societies.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

"People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time. I know my country has not perfected itself. (cheers) At times we struggle to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people, we’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."

The speech where Obama politely and not so subtly reminded Germany that the US set aside the whole WW2 thing and saved them from communism so guess what- you have to help us fight Al Qaeda now? That's the apology Romney is objecting to?

[memphis]

[quote author=Senator TJ link=topic=151692.msg3253202#msg3253202 date=1333558626

In reality, the mainstream part of both parties have pretty much the same foreign policy views so semantic differences like these drive voters more than they should.
[/quote]

War in Iraq?

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

Firstly, you do realize that Obama has zero foreign policy credentials when he took office, right? Basically, that invalidates your whole Romney foreign policy criticism right there as you believe Obama has done well with foreign policy.

unless you count four years on the Senate foreign relations committee.

As someone once said...

the facts speak otherwise.

[Keystone Phil]

[quote author=Senator TJ link=topic=151692.msg3253202#msg3253202 date=1333558626

In reality, the mainstream part of both parties have pretty much the same foreign policy views so semantic differences like these drive voters more than they should.

War in Iraq?
[/quote]

Those differences were minimal when the war was beginning/popular...

[argentarius]

Well, Romney has no foreign policy experience, and no actual opinions on foreign policy, and is running against an incumbent with a highly successful track record on foreign policy.

Thus, his "platform" consists of meaningless memes he made up - "apologising for America durr" and vapid John Wayne platitudes about freedom.

As Hashemite put it: "America is a beacon of freedom. That s my foreign policy platform."

Given the damage done by the Bush 43 presidency to America's international standing, far from that of an apologst, the Obama presidency is more that of a restorationist

Trust me America's international standing is no better under Obama. In fact our foreign policy (especilly in the middle easy) Over the past 5 presidencies is ridiculous.

If Obama had done nothing different to Bush, purely being a democrat in the WH would make the ordinary people in other countries have a higher opinion of America. The republicans just aren't liked outside of America. If Bush got OBL people would look upon it cynically.

[memphis]

[quote author=Senator TJ link=topic=151692.msg3253202#msg3253202 date=1333558626

In reality, the mainstream part of both parties have pretty much the same foreign policy views so semantic differences like these drive voters more than they should.

War in Iraq?

Those differences were minimal when the war was beginning/popular...
[/quote]
That's not true at all.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-03-07/news/0303070308_1_military-action-iraq-older-americans

[Keystone Phil]

[quote author=Senator TJ link=topic=151692.msg3253202#msg3253202 date=1333558626

In reality, the mainstream part of both parties have pretty much the same foreign policy views so semantic differences like these drive voters more than they should.

War in Iraq?

Those differences were minimal when the war was beginning/popular...

That's not true at all.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-03-07/news/0303070308_1_military-action-iraq-older-americans
[/quote]

When it came to party elected officials/leaders, there were minimal differences.

[memphis]

[quote author=Senator TJ link=topic=151692.msg3253202#msg3253202 date=1333558626

In reality, the mainstream part of both parties have pretty much the same foreign policy views so semantic differences like these drive voters more than they should.

War in Iraq?

Those differences were minimal when the war was beginning/popular...

That's not true at all.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-03-07/news/0303070308_1_military-action-iraq-older-americans

When it came to party elected officials/leaders, there were minimal differences.
[/quote]
A majority of Dems voted against authorizing the war.

[Keystone Phil]

[quote author=Senator TJ link=topic=151692.msg3253202#msg3253202 date=1333558626

In reality, the mainstream part of both parties have pretty much the same foreign policy views so semantic differences like these drive voters more than they should.

War in Iraq?

Those differences were minimal when the war was beginning/popular...

That's not true at all.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-03-07/news/0303070308_1_military-action-iraq-older-americans

When it came to party elected officials/leaders, there were minimal differences.

A majority of Dems voted against authorizing the war.
[/quote]

And where were the Congressional leaders? Very little, if any, difference between them and the GOP. That says something about the party.

[TheGlobalizer]

Just for us foreigners, can someone explain what Mitt Romney meant in his speech after winning the latest primaries when he said something like 'America will not apologize abroad' as its sounds a bit like 'we're going to do what we like and tough luck if you don't like it'. Not exactly what you might call diplomatic!

You are interpreting it correctly.  American politics will never include global consensus as an aspect of its stated foreign policy.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the same is true of both Republican and Democratic politicians.  International consensus = subverting American foreign policy.  For what it's worth, as a practical matter, most nations around the world, including in Europe, do the same thing, they're just less vocal/confrontational about it.

[oakvale]

Well, Romney has no foreign policy experience, and no actual opinions on foreign policy, and is running against an incumbent with a highly successful track record on foreign policy.

Thus, his "platform" consists of meaningless memes he made up - "apologising for America durr" and vapid John Wayne platitudes about freedom.

As Hashemite put it: "America is a beacon of freedom. That s my foreign policy platform."

What!?

Firstly, you do realize that Obama has zero foreign policy credentials when he took office, right? Basically, that invalidates your whole Romney foreign policy criticism right there as you believe Obama has done well with foreign policy.

Secondly, Obama has high(er) ratings on foreign policy/terrorism issues, but that's not to suggest he's been successful. The right hate how he engaged us in Libya, and the left wasn't too best pleased, either. Frankly speaking, that was an utter mess how he handled it - wavering on our objective throughout.

Speaking of wavering, he did the same thing in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood are about to take over.

Then there's the Afghanistan mess he has muddled further.

He's also isolated Israel. Ignored, for the most part, Iran. Sold out Poland on missile defense. And engaged in shady appeasement with the Russians.

If you think this amounts to his doing well in foreign policy issues, fine, but the facts speak otherwise.

Okay?

[MalD73]

Ok, back again with more questions! I expected Republicans and Romney supporters to back his position on any apologies for foreign policy but I also expected Democrats to say 'well, what's so bad about that (apologizing)? Instead, looking through the posts on here it looks like democrat supporters (that's the red ones right?) are stating that in fact Obama didn't apologize in the first place. I don't understand what the problem with an apology is? I consider myself a fairly decent chap but god knows I spend half my life apologizing for one thing or another (could just be that I'm a Brit, sorry!). So is it a case of apologizing is wrong or that there is nothing to apologize for? Sorry!

[memphis]

[quote author=Senator TJ link=topic=151692.msg3253202#msg3253202 date=1333558626

In reality, the mainstream part of both parties have pretty much the same foreign policy views so semantic differences like these drive voters more than they should.

War in Iraq?

Those differences were minimal when the war was beginning/popular...

That's not true at all.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-03-07/news/0303070308_1_military-action-iraq-older-americans

When it came to party elected officials/leaders, there were minimal differences.

A majority of Dems voted against authorizing the war.

And where were the Congressional leaders? Very little, if any, difference between them and the GOP. That says something about the party.
[/quote]
The most visible face of the party, Nancy Pelosi, voted against it. Obama was not yet in office, but I very much doubt he would have supported it. Iraq was obviously the Republicans' war even if they scared a minority of the Democrats into going along with it.

[Yelnoc]

Ok, back again with more questions! I expected Republicans and Romney supporters to back his position on any apologies for foreign policy but I also expected Democrats to say 'well, what's so bad about that (apologizing)? Instead, looking through the posts on here it looks like democrat supporters (that's the red ones right?) are stating that in fact Obama didn't apologize in the first place. I don't understand what the problem with an apology is? I consider myself a fairly decent chap but god knows I spend half my life apologizing for one thing or another (could just be that I'm a Brit, sorry!). So is it a case of apologizing is wrong or that there is nothing to apologize for? Sorry!

The logic is that if the President apologizes for the action of America, it belays weakness.  Our enemies will pick up on any hint of weakness and attack us like sharks to blood.  Of course that logic is incredibly flimsy, considering we are occupying one country and engaging in drone strikes in several others, while stationing troops and military equipment in all corners of the globe.  But Americans as a whole, both right and left, tend to be both uninformed and stirred by platitudes, so these things matter. 

And yes red is Democrat, blue is Republican, green is Independent, orange is Other, dark green is Green (environmentalist), yellow is Libertarian, and the beige-ish color is the Constitution Party.

[MalD73]

Thanks for the insight - much appreciated. I still don't think anyone's answered the question 'what is Romney's foreign policy?' Someone asked earlier but the 'answer' was 'Obama's approval rating has dropped in some parts of the Middle East'. Not really an answer there, is there? So does anyone know what his policies are or is he keeping them secret?

[Keystone Phil]

The most visible face of the party, Nancy Pelosi, voted against it. Obama was not yet in office, but I very much doubt he would have supported it. Iraq was obviously the Republicans' war even if they scared a minority of the Democrats into going along with it.

Nancy Pelosi was not a more visible face than Dick Gephardt in 2003. Nice try.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama apologized to Bin Laden by killing him.

[memphis]

The most visible face of the party, Nancy Pelosi, voted against it. Obama was not yet in office, but I very much doubt he would have supported it. Iraq was obviously the Republicans' war even if they scared a minority of the Democrats into going along with it.

Nancy Pelosi was not a more visible face than Dick Gephardt in 2003. Nice try.

So now we're comparing the parties from nine years ago? We were speaking in the present tense.

[Keystone Phil]

The most visible face of the party, Nancy Pelosi, voted against it. Obama was not yet in office, but I very much doubt he would have supported it. Iraq was obviously the Republicans' war even if they scared a minority of the Democrats into going along with it.

Nancy Pelosi was not a more visible face than Dick Gephardt in 2003. Nice try.

So now we're comparing the parties from nine years ago? We were speaking in the present tense.

...I'm pretty sure the basis for my first remark was that there was little difference between the two parties when they vote was made/the war was popular.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Romney is pandering to his base and using nationalistic bromides to rally support.

oh wait...*shake shake shake*

Mitt Romney is a STRONG and DECISIVE leader who will NEVER apologize for AMERICA, the GREATEST country in the world.

[asexual trans victimologist]

American foreign policy is almost always made up on the spot. Even within presidencies you can swing wildly between quasi-imperialism, near-isolationism, multilateralism, gunboat diplomacy...It's actually a minor miracle that the Bush administration was able to maintain a quasi-imperial/gunboat diplomacy stance almost-kinda-sorta consistently for as long as it did.

[Yelnoc]

Thanks for the insight - much appreciated. I still don't think anyone's answered the question 'what is Romney's foreign policy?' Someone asked earlier but the 'answer' was 'Obama's approval rating has dropped in some parts of the Middle East'. Not really an answer there, is there? So does anyone know what his policies are or is he keeping them secret?

Romney has no coherent foreign policy that I am aware of.  That is why he is falling back on platitudes.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Just for us foreigners, can someone explain what Mitt Romney meant in his speech after winning the latest primaries when he said something like 'America will not apologize abroad' as its sounds a bit like 'we're going to do what we like and tough luck if you don't like it'. Not exactly what you might call diplomatic! Oh, and also, after he made this comment it sounded like what can only be described as a warehouse full of angry baboons had been released into the auditorium, screaming and grunting like they hadn't been fed for a week or two. Was this in fact the case or was it merely 'canned' baboon?

The above post captures the very essence of trolling.

You are not really asking a question for clarification at all.  What you are clearly doing is going off on an extremely biased anti Romney rant, giving others the opportunity to do the same.

[Hashemite]

Romney has no political opinions of most issues, let alone a boring and useless thing such as foreign policy. His only policy is whatever money he and his Moneybag friends can benefit monetarily from.