Whether it is Mitt Romney or President Obama the impostion of American weight through military power should be rejected.  GW took the US into two unfunded wars and Mr. Romney and his mis-named neo-cons would seek to take us into two more, involving the US in Iran and Syria.  Mr. Romney would tie the US even more tightly to the Israeli's increasingly leaving us at the mercy of Israeli decisions. 

Any real "conservative" would pull back in horror at this further expansion of American action abroad.  This New Rome that certain parties dream of will end up the same as the old if we do not begin to re-examine how far we wish to project American power and what and what is not in America's best interests. 

While many decry the size of the US deficits this sam citizenry sits back in silence as more wars are hinted upon, greater expenditures in defense are considered while necessary expenses at home are ignored.  We are becoming a muscle bound giant imposing its vision of the truth upon the world.  I doubt the world shares our vision.  I doubt they view us as the new Messiah and frankly our actions economically and militarily represent quite the opposite of a Messiah.

Bush led by showcasing a strong America. Obama led by apologizing for Bush, and for American strength, and the results have been a disaster. These sanctions on Iran came only after two years of begging by the Republicans, to stop all the warm offerings to Iran and to get tough. Obama did NOTHING when an uprising in Iran could have led to a change. He did not want to offend the ruling Mullahs. NEW PARAGRAPH: A nation that is to be a leader in the world needs to be respected, not liked. And Obama has shown nothing but incompetence in projecting the kind of strength that would garner worldwide respect. He has shown disdain and embarrassment for his own country, and we are seen as weak as a result. The Globe is about as serious in this as teen girls at a Beatles concert.

Mitt Romney would be an unmitigated disaster for this country.  He'd bring us back to the George W. Bush policies--both economically and in foreign policy--that created the economic disaster and balooned the deficit.

good.

And how about the Benghazi cover up
?

CBS News and "60 Minutes" reporter Lara Logan lambasted the Obama administration for pushing the "major lie" that the Taliban has been weakened in Afghanistan by the U.S. military.

Logan gave a blistering speech in Chicago this past week that ripped the administration for the way it has handled the war in Afghanistan and the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

"I chose this subject because, one, I can't stand that there is a major lie being propagated," Logan said about the administration touting the weakening of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Speaking about Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was killed, Logan says she hopes the U.S. will "exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it."

Unbelievable:

The State Department denied Tuesday it ever concluded that the deadly consulate attack Sept. 11 in Libya was an unplanned outburst prompted by an anti-Islam movie, despite public statements early on by some in the Obama administration suggesting that was the case.

A U.S. security officer asked the State Dept. for more security in Libya -- he received no response.

When security officer Eric Nordstrom asked for more security in Libya in light of more than 200 security breaches from July 2011 to July 2012, he received no answer. Forty-eight of these recorded breaches took place in Benghazi.

Instead, he learned that State Dept. official Charlene Lamb wanted to keep the number of security personnel in Benghazi "artificially low," whatever that means. The result of this was not only the death of four Americans on September 11, but the wounding of three others who were hurt so bad that one of them is still in the hospital. 

Nordstrom claims Lamb "believed the Benghazi post did not need any Diplomatic Security Special Agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency." Ambassador Stevens died in that "safe haven."

e U.S. has been working with Jordan to monitor chemical and biological weapons sites in Syria

Hmm, I wonder where they got those?

the one place Romney does differ is he does not accept donations from foreigners.

The scary thing about Romney is that, as CEO of Bain Capital, he was in a position to dictate terms to those he did business with. I think that his life experience has led him to believe that this can be done as "CEO" of this country. Not only can we not afford his hawkish approach but, in an age of nuclear proliferation, taking this approach could have disastrous consequences. We've already weakened ourselves with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, lets continue to defend ourselves using intelligence, not force.

"HHK" said "then the cost of a nuclear Iran is enormous"

"HHK" said, "We must have unfettered access to oil since it is essential to our security and economic well-being."

Let us speak to both.  You know that a nuclear armed Iran is an enormous threat to the US?  Truly a greater threat than the old nuclear armed Soviet Union or the currently nuclear armed China or perhaps North Korea?  Where are your war drums for these  nations?  I see no neo-cons screaming to attack North Korea, China.  No you don't hear them because the issue is not Iran and its threat to the US the issue is Iran and its threat to Israel.  If we are so concerned about Israel then let us make a treaty with Israel an attack upon Israel is an attack upon the US.  Let even a nuclear armed Iran know that any action against Israel will lead to total destruction.  But we don't officially do that.  Why?

Because of your second statement.  Oil.  You would fight wars sacrifice our young in the name of cheap oil.  If it is so important to this nation, then break the hold of middle easter oil.  A "landing on the moon" expenditure for new forms of energy.  A massive spike in the cost of gasoline. 

This is your new America.  We want it and we want it now, but do not ask us to pay for it, to sacrifice for it.  You may ask the young.  You may take their lives to give us what we desire but do not ask this new American public, this flock of what is rapidly becoming a little people to sacrifice.

"HHK" said  "They have oil and they are willing to sell it to us.  So, we hold our nose, allow ourselves to be soiled by our association with them,"

My, my what a proud and wonderful thing to say about us.  What a tremendous way to determine what our foreign policy should be.  You got oil, then you can be anything you wish.  Don't have oil?  Well then we'll talk about how you treat your women and children.  By god I do love consistency.  I would prefer to see an end to the "moralizing" about how bad muslims are then. If you're going to take the oil from what was that term, oh yeah, "scumbags" then we should just be silent about the other "scumbags". Kind of like a foreign policy of the schoolyard bully.  I'll pick on the guys I'm sure I can take, but those others I'll just make noises at.  Now for this form of foreign policy all I can do is copy, "system".  L-O-L

"HHK" said,  "Where does this idea come from that the Head of State must have his children in uniform and/or harm's way or otherwise he is a hypocrite?"

Where or is it why?  I prefer why.  It is because some of us were going to war while the rich stayed home and proclaimed their patriotism.  Caught like the cowards they were when the middle class's children started to get drafted we eliminated the draft.  Now the stay at home warriors, the political cowards, those too good to fight send off the volunteers our new mecernaries to fight your wars for oil.

That's your new America, just like the old Rome.  Already we hire professional mercs to do our fighting.  If politicians and the public want war then make the sacrifice to fight a war.  Nah, your new America can't even pay the taxes to pay for a war. 

HHK-  said, "The Patrician elite in Rome were expected to serve, suffer the hardships of campaign, and be put at risk by leading in action."

Not at the end.

HHK said "I just hate totalitarian ideologies and Islamism is one of them."

Well I'll withdraw "scumbags" for "scum" although I see little difference.  As to your dismay with totalitarian regimes that has nothing to do with Islamism.  The Saudi's aren't Islamist there are many in their midst, they are merely monarchists with a religious twist.  Point of fact "Islamists" do not rule any country I am familiar with, they merely take advantage of the totalitarians that we propped up over the years.  Even Egypt with its Muslim brotherhood isn't Islamist as it is a long way from "jihadist" to Muslim brother.

But let me say I have no problem with a pragmatic viewpoint in foreign policy.  I just have a distaste for moralizing by pragmatists, it is almost an oxymoron.

 On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to seek a Declaration of War against Germany in order that the world “be made safe for democracy.” Fourteen years later, Hitler came to power. Idealism doesn't work in foreign policy but the military-industrial complex loves it. 

"System" I seldom find HHK to be outrageous in his statements.  HIs remark regarding the term "moralizing" I get, but would simply say that his statement "I hate totalitarianism" is a moralization.  But it's not a big deal.  HHK one can actually have a conversation with.  He actually takes positions and doesn't change the meaning of what he said when he meant as he said it.  Beyond that he takes a position holds to that position and agrees where agreement is to be found.  And most importantly his statements of fact are generally facts!  One other thing about him, discussions regarding policy generally remain within policy and outside of politics.  He doesn't run to one political party or another to deflect a discussion.

Okay "HHK" don't let your head swell, but you are one of a few that tends to discuss rationally.  I'll find something to pick on you with later.