Quantcast

Mitt Romney says "The Middle East needs American leadership": Would it be right to impose it on them?

JMCC 2012/09/14 10:37:26
No it would not be right to impose...
Yes it would be right to impose...
Undecided
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Or is the same sort of rhetoric and policy that caused the Muslims to be unhappy in the first place?

Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Mitt Romney broadened his criticism of Barack Obama’s handling of attacks in the Middle East, saying the killing of four U.S. personnel in Libya demonstrates the need to strengthen America’s economy and military.

“As we watch the world today, sometimes it seems that we are at the mercy of events instead of shaping events,” he said at a campaign rally in the battleground state of Virginia yesterday. “A strong America is essential to shape events.”

The Republican presidential candidate came under bipartisan criticism for his response to Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya that led to the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • twocrows 2012/09/14 15:06:55
    No it would not be right to impose...
    twocrows
    +6
    What part of, "Imperialism has been shown to fail. It's over," doesn't the Mittster understand?

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/09/21 02:02:51
    No it would not be right to impose...
    Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    The whole reason they hate us because we've been shoving our "leadership" down their throats for decades. What a tool Romney is. Obama resides in the same shed.
  • Jasmine 2012/09/16 19:21:46
    No it would not be right to impose...
    Jasmine
    +2
    That's exactly the arrogant attitude that has many in the middle east (and other parts of the world) so angry at the United States to begin with. Who are we to say such a thing?

    facepalm

    facepalm
  • tina 2012/09/15 08:12:33
    No it would not be right to impose...
    tina
    +1
    Wtf!!!! Why do right wingers always think we need to impose our values onto other countries?Do they think we are going to save them from themselves. What we need is to stay the hell out of everyone elses buisness.
  • Windy tina 2012/09/17 06:25:10
  • Steve ☮... Windy 2012/09/21 02:04:08
    Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    Very well said.
  • Windy Steve ☮... 2012/09/21 19:13:07
    Windy
    +1
    Thank you.
  • Red_Horse 2012/09/14 20:42:29
  • Pyro-82 2012/09/14 19:23:39
    None of the above
    Pyro-82
    +1
    Lets just wipe out any threats and leave allready.
    They do not want us there and our soldiers have better things to do.
  • bob h. 2012/09/14 17:59:20
    Yes it would be right to impose...
    bob h.
    +4
    Absolutely. And Bishop "Fearless" Mitt is just the man to do it. I've never heard anyone so out of touch w/ the real world as this tool. He doesn't even know what an embarrassment he is to this country,
  • Fred Rogers 2012/09/14 16:59:03
    No it would not be right to impose...
    Fred Rogers
    +3
    That may be the dumbest quote I've read all week.
  • bob h. Fred Ro... 2012/09/14 18:00:57
    bob h.
    +1
    There's still Saturday. ;)
  • Rebel Yell 2012/09/14 15:14:32
    None of the above
    Rebel Yell
    +4
    Romney doesn't know jack sheet about the Middle East and has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. He is just babbling and spewing out more I Love America rhetoric.
    Mitt wants to add around 2.1 trillion to the deficit by pouring more money into an already bloated defense budget, rife with fraud and waste. How will he pay for that? No idea. He won't say. He's closing loopholes ! Yay! Which ones? He won't say.

    Mitt never explains any of his plans. They will just appear magically because he says so. One thing is clear, he is getting more and more desperate. That heckler in Virginia really worked him over yesterday and then he got more bad news. Obama is pulling away in Ohio.
  • twocrows 2012/09/14 15:06:55
    No it would not be right to impose...
    twocrows
    +6
    What part of, "Imperialism has been shown to fail. It's over," doesn't the Mittster understand?
  • Jasmine twocrows 2012/09/16 19:23:47
  • DizziNY 2012/09/14 14:19:20
    No it would not be right to impose...
    DizziNY
    +6
    We need to keep our noses out of other country's business.
  • Manster DizziNY 2012/09/14 16:19:54 (edited)
    Manster
    +3
    Amen to that! Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it! I think it's stuff like this that explains why Romney didn't want any Ron Paul delegates at the convention. If they had been allowed to participate in the shaping of the official party platform, it's highly unlikely that this stuff would've been included!
  • auron 2012/09/14 12:50:49
    No it would not be right to impose...
    auron
    +2
    Because it has been working great so far....
  • Kirby 2012/09/14 12:44:47
    No it would not be right to impose...
    Kirby
    +5
    We don't need to be in the business of telling others how to run their countries. Mittens just wants to start another war. Because war is good for his bottom line!
  • Windy Kirby 2012/09/17 06:30:29
    Windy
    And Obama will also get us in another war if he's re-elected, both of them are tools of the war machine.
  • Kirby Windy 2012/09/17 12:15:09
    Kirby
    +1
    I couldn't agree more and I don't trust either of them any farther than I could throw them!
  • the spoiler 2012/09/14 12:21:40
    No it would not be right to impose...
    the spoiler
    +3
    The Middle East don't even want our presents in their country, so why would they want our leadership, or why would they follow that leadership ?
  • ruralntex 2012/09/14 11:55:16
    Yes it would be right to impose...
    ruralntex
    "Impose" is the wrong word. Expose would be a better term. Impose, BTW is your word not Romney's
  • JMCC ruralntex 2012/09/14 12:00:28
    JMCC
    +2
    That is my basis for the poll. what he said are in quotes, the question refers to future possible events. In Mitt's opinion the middle east needs American leadership - my question is does the US have the right to impose that leadership on them?
  • ruralntex JMCC 2012/09/14 12:32:03
    ruralntex
    "Impose," implies that Romney would fly in and take over. I think Romney is saying that the whole interface with the middle east would be different if we actually had a leader with a well defined position on international interface with those nations. In other words, expose them to American leadership, as opposed to the non-leading bafoon we have at the helm now. Obama wants them to like him and America. That is never going to happen. The best we can hope for is their respect, and that is where the big stick comes in.
  • JMCC ruralntex 2012/09/14 12:41:07 (edited)
    JMCC
    +2
    The problem is that the more the stick is used, the greater the resistance becomes.

    Afghanistan was invaded 200 years ago and has been under one form of occupation or another ever since...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    In your opinion, how long would Americans have continued the struggle to throw off the yoke of the British?
  • ruralntex JMCC 2012/09/14 13:17:22
    ruralntex
    The invade and stay forever mentality is not needed. A short sweet @$$ whipping ,as needed, kind of a stick is what we should take up. That way we disable the resistance as it becomes an issue. Afghanistan is never going to be "won over." Iraq wants it head, so it can get on with its civil war. Iran needs a smack down over that nuclear enrichment. But the way we have it now, we move in and rebuild the country and make them ready to resist again. The UN is silk glove for a hog.
  • Rebel Yell ruralntex 2012/09/14 15:34:51
    Rebel Yell
    +1
    " A short sweet @$$ whipping ,as needed, kind of a stick is what we should take up."

    Sure thing. Didn't that work well in Iraq. We 'shocked and awed them' alright. 4321 Americans dead and thousands of Iraqis. All that oil Cheney craved now goes to Russia and Iran. Iraq is a textbook example of why ass whippings do not work.
  • ruralntex Rebel Yell 2012/09/14 17:19:03
    ruralntex
    We stayed, like we all ways do. We won the war and lost the peace. Also, Iraq and Viet Nam are prime examples of why the UN is a silk glove for a pig.
  • bob h. ruralntex 2012/09/14 18:10:46
    bob h.
    +1
    This is SOP. A loss is a UN loss; a win is a USA win. Trouble is, I don't remember many wins.
  • JMCC ruralntex 2012/09/14 16:17:37
    JMCC
    Has that ever worked?

    I mean in all the military engagements that the US has ever engaged in?
  • ruralntex JMCC 2012/09/14 17:29:48
    ruralntex
    It worked in the Mexican American war. It worked in the Spanish American war. It worked in Grenada and in Panama. It sort of worked in the Civil war, but that is different from the others, as we fought ourselves. It worked against the Barbary coast pirates and it seems to be working with the Somolian pirates. Kick their @$$ and leave 'em sitting in the ashes. Cease rebuilding after the whipping. Don't stay.
  • bob h. ruralntex 2012/09/14 18:07:14
    bob h.
    Now Iran is the bad guy? When did they become a threat?
  • bob h. ruralntex 2012/09/14 18:05:24
    bob h.
    +2
    We have 287 overseas military bases. At what point does the stick get big enough?
  • ruralntex bob h. 2012/09/14 18:35:45
    ruralntex
    My point exactly. Whip their @$$ and LEAVE. Don't rebuild it for them. Don't put in a base. Don't leave soldiers. Leave only death and destruction. An @$$ whipping will regain its original meaning.
  • JMCC ruralntex 2012/09/14 19:26:47
    JMCC
    +1
    No need to whip ass - they are likely to tear the place apart and kill each other the moment we are out the door in any case....
  • ruralntex JMCC 2012/09/14 19:31:04
    ruralntex
    +1
    Maybe you are right. One or two of those kinds of horror stories and perhaps groups and countries will avoid the situation that brings about US ire in order to avoid the @$$ whoopin.
  • Steve ☮... ruralntex 2012/09/21 02:07:12
    Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮
    "Impose," implies that Romney would fly in and take over.

    Ummmm, yeah. That's exactly what he will do. Just like Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Not to mention those before them. Why in the hell would you think Romney will be any different?
  • 9th of 9 2012/09/14 11:46:14
    No it would not be right to impose...
    9th of 9
    +4
    "Globalization" is the event. It's happening right before our eyes. Romney is just another Salesman.
  • Windy 9th of 9 2012/09/17 06:34:55
    Windy
    +1
    Yep, just like obama has been and Bush2 and Clinton and Bush1 and who knows how far back it goes.
  • 9th of 9 Windy 2012/09/17 11:59:50
    9th of 9
    It goes back to the beginning of time itself. History is full of "landgrabbers". In America's beginning, there were two "popular" types of people (the ones we talk about most at least) One type were those who escaped oppression, the second were those who lived to oppress. I recently took a trip to Jamestown Va. My eyes were opened to facts I could never have figured out on my own. My quest (as I put it) to figure out the truth about what really went on was reinforced by a man named "Rick" whom I ran into by pure chance about a week after I returned home. "Rick's" people were Native American's from that region and are still there today. We talked about the "beginnings" which were absolutely fresh in his thoughts and mind. This is the part where I know God works in mysterious ways. Rick told me of the two types of people, he told me of the travelers who came accross the waters, they were of different races, and they were accepted by the Natives, and they did live together in harmony. That is until the "Majority Race" as he called them (and he was very quick not to include me as one of them, for that I gave him my utmost attention, and thanks.) moved in. They were the "real landgrabbers", well many of them were, as he put it. Long story short, after all that went down in the year...
    It goes back to the beginning of time itself. History is full of "landgrabbers". In America's beginning, there were two "popular" types of people (the ones we talk about most at least) One type were those who escaped oppression, the second were those who lived to oppress. I recently took a trip to Jamestown Va. My eyes were opened to facts I could never have figured out on my own. My quest (as I put it) to figure out the truth about what really went on was reinforced by a man named "Rick" whom I ran into by pure chance about a week after I returned home. "Rick's" people were Native American's from that region and are still there today. We talked about the "beginnings" which were absolutely fresh in his thoughts and mind. This is the part where I know God works in mysterious ways. Rick told me of the two types of people, he told me of the travelers who came accross the waters, they were of different races, and they were accepted by the Natives, and they did live together in harmony. That is until the "Majority Race" as he called them (and he was very quick not to include me as one of them, for that I gave him my utmost attention, and thanks.) moved in. They were the "real landgrabbers", well many of them were, as he put it. Long story short, after all that went down in the years that followed, he was very proud to say that his people are still there. Still living with those that did not come here to oppress. We ended our conversation with him inviting me to a Powwow. He said, just go to any of them, it didn't have to be his tribe, just go and view the memories and traditions. The wife and I have go to one this Fall. When "Rick" and I said our good-byes that day, my feelings were that I didn't want him to stop talking to me. The "landgrabbers" are moreso now in our daily lives than ever before. We "the travelers" are part of their "land grabbing" now. It has always been, for them, on a global scale.
    (more)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/21 08:48:30

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals