Foreign Policy in November

[Donerail]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

Invading Libya, sending more troops into Afghanistan, sending troops down into Uganda, preparing action on Iran and Syria among other things.

Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan, we didn't "invade" Libya, we quietly assisted in resource procurement and sent temporary air support for the rebels, the Uganda forces are reported to be a grand total of 100 soldiers, and the latter is pure speculation.

Obama campaigned against large and poorly planned military excursions; not short-lengthed and limited engagements for a narrow purpose. He's performed exactly within the style of foreign policy he campaigned in, and most of his foreign policy efforts have been successful and near-perfectly planned. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for, but his foreign policy is miles smarter than the Bush administration and a potential Romney administration.

$896 million is "quietly assist[ing] in resource procurement"? Obama launched a military campaign without any sort of compelling reason that went against US interest in the region while violating the Constitution. Obama unilaterally began a military campaign that he alone decided to do while spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money and risking American lives without even following the Constitution. He needs to return that Peace Prize.

[Donerail]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

Invading Libya, sending more troops into Afghanistan, sending troops down into Uganda, preparing action on Iran and Syria among other things.

Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan, we didn't "invade" Libya, we quietly assisted in resource procurement and sent temporary air support for the rebels, the Uganda forces are reported to be a grand total of 100 soldiers, and the latter is pure speculation.

Obama campaigned against large and poorly planned military excursions; not short-lengthed and limited engagements for a narrow purpose. He's performed exactly within the style of foreign policy he campaigned in, and most of his foreign policy efforts have been successful and near-perfectly planned. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for, but his foreign policy is miles smarter than the Bush administration and a potential Romney administration.

$896 million is "quietly assist[ing] in resource procurement"? Obama launched a military campaign without any sort of compelling reason that went against US interest in the region while violating the Constitution. Obama unilaterally began a military campaign that he alone decided to do while spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money and risking American lives without even following the Constitution. He needs to return that Peace Prize.

...How was the Libya operation risking American lives?

[Donerail]

I don't believe any US troops died in Libya, and besides, don't we want to get rid of horrible dictators?

As you put it, he was "risking American lives". Do people have to die for their lives to be at risk? And was that 'horrible dictator' a threat to America?

[Donerail]

I don't believe any US troops died in Libya, and besides, don't we want to get rid of horrible dictators?

As you put it, he was "risking American lives". Do people have to die for their lives to be at risk? And was that 'horrible dictator' a threat to America?

OK, I'll grant you the rising lives thing, but does it matter who Gaddafi was a threat to? He was murdering his own people! Would you just stand idly by and let those people die?

The money we spent on Libya alone (almost a billion dollars) could instead have been used to improve the quality of healthcare or pollution standards or a variety of other things that could save thousands of lives here in the US.

[Donerail]

I don't believe any US troops died in Libya, and besides, don't we want to get rid of horrible dictators?

As you put it, he was "risking American lives". Do people have to die for their lives to be at risk? And was that 'horrible dictator' a threat to America?

OK, I'll grant you the rising lives thing, but does it matter who Gaddafi was a threat to? He was murdering his own people! Would you just stand idly by and let those people die?

The money we spent on Libya alone (almost a billion dollars) could instead have been used to improve the quality of healthcare or pollution standards or a variety of other things that could save thousands of lives here in the US.

But wouldn't you - as a libertarian - oppose doing that, as well?

Congress signed away its short-term ability to stop military action with the War Powers Act (in the name of restricting Presidents' ability to go to war, ironically). Despite being controversial, it has never been ruled as unconstitutional. We toppled one of the worst dictators in the world with no American casualties and on less than 20% of one day's federal budget. But I guess Obama should have pulled a Ron Paul and handed out Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

I support reforming Medicaid, not ending it.

President Obama ignored the War Powers Resolution (which he believes to be unconstitutional) during the Libya conflict. And we toppled an anti-US regime in order to potentially install one friendlier to US interests, not for some moral 'keeping people safe' or 'promoting democracy' or some other BS reason.

[Donerail]

I don't believe any US troops died in Libya, and besides, don't we want to get rid of horrible dictators?

As you put it, he was "risking American lives". Do people have to die for their lives to be at risk? And was that 'horrible dictator' a threat to America?

OK, I'll grant you the rising lives thing, but does it matter who Gaddafi was a threat to? He was murdering his own people! Would you just stand idly by and let those people die?

The money we spent on Libya alone (almost a billion dollars) could instead have been used to improve the quality of healthcare or pollution standards or a variety of other things that could save thousands of lives here in the US.

But wouldn't you - as a libertarian - oppose doing that, as well?

Congress signed away its short-term ability to stop military action with the War Powers Act (in the name of restricting Presidents' ability to go to war, ironically). Despite being controversial, it has never been ruled as unconstitutional. We toppled one of the worst dictators in the world with no American casualties and on less than 20% of one day's federal budget. But I guess Obama should have pulled a Ron Paul and handed out Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

I support reforming Medicaid, not ending it.

President Obama ignored the War Powers Resolution (which he believes to be unconstitutional) during the Libya conflict. And we toppled an anti-US regime in order to potentially install one friendlier to US interests, not for some moral 'keeping people safe' or 'promoting democracy' or some other BS reason.

And what does reform entail? What are your thoughts on the EPA?

In regards to Libya, we held the reigns for 10 days before operational authority was transferred to NATO. Regardless of what you think of NATO, it is a treaty ratified by the U.S. Congress and in full compliance with the Constitution. At nearly every turn, constitutionality has been challenged on questionable laws. Why then has NATO not been challenged in a significant aspect? The MIC can't stop organic legal challenges to the constitutionalism of the organization in a court of law. If Congress and Americans are opposed to the workings of NATO, then there's two solutions: one through the judicial and the other through the legislative branch. I don't approve of many of the underlying functions of the organization, but I also realize that the blame falls at the feet of an inept legislative branch.

Reform entails block-granting Medicare funds to the states to allow them to innovate and make the system more efficient, providing better service at a lower cost (some won't work, some will, the ones that do will be adopted by the rest). As for the EPA, I actually fully support it.

I'm not questioning the constitutionality of NATO, I'm saying I'm opposed to foreign wars of aggression like the US conducted in Libya.