Obama says Romney called Russia our 'No. 1 enemy'

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Romney said what he said and you have not been able to show where the title of this thread is wrong. All you can do is try to make it about Obama. How far do you think that argument goes on people that are already unimpressed with Obama? It sure as hell does not fix Romney's poor statement.

I do not know how you could miss my post where I detailed exactly how the title is wrong. Maybe you should actually look next time?
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

There you go. Here is a snippet.

Romney: "There's no question but that in terms of geopolitics -- I’m talking about votes at the United Nations and actions of a geopolitical nature -- Russia is the No. 1 adversary in that regard. That doesn't make them an enemy.

Romney flat out says they are NOT an enemy. OP title says Romney called them the #1 enemy. Where I am from we call that a lie.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
I do not know how you could miss my post where I detailed exactly how the title is wrong. Maybe you should actually look next time?

I did not miss that post at all. You apparently are trying to change the meaning of words in order to make an argument. That does not fly with me. He said what he said. If you have no idea what a FOE is, then that is too bad onya, not me.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Romney flat out says they are NOT an enemy. OP title says Romney called them the #1 enemy. Where I am from we call that a lie.

You know damn well that he did call them our number 1 enemy BEFORE and AFTER he said something different. You are latching onto one of those but it does not make him not have said what he actually did say.

You sound quite desperate trying to "prove" he did not say what we all can easily see he actually did say. Give it up because it just looks sad.

Don't you feel a little dirty at the end of the day after spending so much time and effort twisting the truth in order to defend your guy? I never have to do that and I am not jealous. It seems both untenable and highly destructive to one's own sense of right and wrong. Then again, I still think lying is bad so I must be an idiot.

pssst....we are the only ones who are concerned that the 'thread title may be misleading' or the romnney didnt call russia an 'enemy'..just a 'geo political foe'...obama not good at forgien policy and romnney probably (just my OPINION) will get the u.s. into more wars and toss u.s. troops around the world like a bunch of dice..with all the troops barry has been throwing around, that says alot....but i digress

maybe somebody should email mr. putin and tell him its all just a misrepresentation or mischarcterazation of what romnney said....both side are to blame but geeez..dont need to keep fanning the flames...

www.presstv.ir... ves-russia-right-on-us-system/

Negotiations between Russia and the United States on the missile project are deadlocked over Washington's reluctance to give Moscow categorical assurances that the missile system will not be used against it.

that said russia also throws a bit of gas on the fire...

In May, the Russian General Staff said it did not rule out a pre-emptive strike against the US missile system in the event of an "aggravation of the situation."

doesnt matter how big and bad the u.s. thinks it is....the more it throws its 'weight' around...the sooner somebody or a bunch of sombodies will say 'enuff is enuff, you dont run the world'

Originally posted by TrueBlood

Originally posted by penninja
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

You know... skin color isn't the only indication of race, Russians are very unique in many ways and knowing quite a few Russians I don't think many of them would actually mind the classification as a race all their own.

Technically, there are only 3 races of mordern Humans. Asian, Caucasian (European), and Negro or Black. Everyone else has been mixed between those 3 races due to war, occupation, etc. There is no Latino, Jewish or Russian race.

So technically, I dont exist ? lol

Anyway, I really dont hope this is the start of WW3 with Obama saying that. Cause if Romney wins and conflicts begin with Russia... then yeah, not good.

aaaand..romnney called russia a 'foe' now there are alot of dictionaries out there and here is just one...

foe:

a person who feels enmity, hatred, or malice toward another; enemy

dictionary.reference.com...

so intranslation foe= enemy.......dont matter what WE think...

Originally posted by blackmetalmist

Originally posted by TrueBlood

Originally posted by penninja
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

You know... skin color isn't the only indication of race, Russians are very unique in many ways and knowing quite a few Russians I don't think many of them would actually mind the classification as a race all their own.

Technically, there are only 3 races of mordern Humans. Asian, Caucasian (European), and Negro or Black. Everyone else has been mixed between those 3 races due to war, occupation, etc. There is no Latino, Jewish or Russian race.

So technically, I dont exist ?

lol

Anyway, I really dont hope this is the start of WW3 with Obama saying that. Cause if Romney wins and conflicts begin with Russia... then yeah, not good.

No it's not that you don't exist it's just that every different culture should not be considered it's own race.

Originally posted by clearmind
aaaand..romnney called russia a 'foe' now there are alot of dictionaries out there and here is just one...

foe:

a person who feels enmity, hatred, or malice toward another; enemy

dictionary.reference.com...

so intranslation foe= enemy.......dont matter what WE think...

No, he did not. He called them a geopolitical foe. Sucks when truth doesnt fit your agenda. So give me his EXACT quote and a detailed analysis of what was wrong about it. Thanks.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by clearmind
aaaand..romnney called russia a 'foe' now there are alot of dictionaries out there and here is just one...

foe:

a person who feels enmity, hatred, or malice toward another; enemy

dictionary.reference.com...

so intranslation foe= enemy.......dont matter what WE think...

No, he did not. He called them a geopolitical foe. Sucks when truth doesnt fit your agenda. So give me his EXACT quote and a detailed analysis of what was wrong about it. Thanks.

edit on 15-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

YES HE DID.
He said FOE.
FOE means ENEMY.
What did you miss?

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by clearmind
aaaand..romnney called russia a 'foe' now there are alot of dictionaries out there and here is just one...

foe:

a person who feels enmity, hatred, or malice toward another; enemy

dictionary.reference.com...

so intranslation foe= enemy.......dont matter what WE think...

No, he did not. He called them a geopolitical foe. Sucks when truth doesnt fit your agenda. So give me his EXACT quote and a detailed analysis of what was wrong about it. Thanks.

edit on 15-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

YES HE DID.
He said FOE.
FOE means ENEMY.
What did you miss?

I don't want to keep repeating myself. Let's make this simple. Give me his EXACT quote and a detailed analysis of how he is wrong. Do not bother responding if you can not do so, myself and everyone else here will take it as an admission from you Romney is right.

putin is not Russia and let he will be a foe#1 of Romney

Originally posted by neo96
Lets see,

The people who are blocking peace attempts in Syria,those people who have armed Iran for decades,those people who are currently giving Iran nuclear techinical "expertise", those people who have armed "terrorists" for decades.

Are not enemy number 1, alright then what the hell are they?

People looking out for their interests. In the same way that the people in charge of the USA are looking out for theirs.

Blocking peace attempts in Syria? Huh? Attempting to stop a Saudi Arabian funded Sunni militia from overthrowing a government headed by the Shia Minority. More specifically attempting to stop the west from providing the Sunni faction with air support.

The 'armed terrorists for decades' thing is a bit rich don't you think. The USA happily arms terrorists when said terrorists are terrorising people they would like to see the back of.

The problem with helping the Saudis export their form of Islam to Syria is that its going to backfire. Its an even less tolerant and even more extreme version than the other.

Do you think Syrians will be better off once their (at least partly) secular state is turned into a mini Saudi Arabia? Do we honestly think the people leading it will be really aligned to the west?

Theres nothing wrong with giving Iran nuclear expertise unless the nuclear expertise is on enrichment of uranium. Under international agreements they can build as many Russian designed nuclear power stations as they want.

The Russian regime isn't a pretty one but its rational. Where its opposing the west its either because we are threatening their interests or embarking on some dumb destabilising adventure.

Calling them an enemy simply sours relations unnecessarily and makes co-operation difficult in areas where there is no conflict of interest.

reply to post by justwokeup


Your entire post just proved Romney right. Russia, in the name of THEIR perceived interests attempts to thwart US interests at every turn. Thank you for agreeing with exactly what Romney said.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Perhaps its what he meant but its not how its perceived or bring spun.

There is a difference between:

1) Being in opposition to another country on specific issues due to conflict of interest.
2) Being fundamentally always in opposition to the country due to some deep territorial or ideological disagreement.

Naming a nation as 'Enemy number 1' is not helpful in the 1st case. In the 2nd case 'like the Soviet Union' its valid but pretty much self evident.

I think modern Russia is in the first category.

The only nations currently in the 2nd category are basket cases like North Korea and nations we need to pretend are friendly until they've run out of oil.

Originally posted by justwokeup
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Perhaps its what he meant but its not how its perceived or bring spun.

There is a difference between:

1) Being in opposition to another country on specific issues due to conflict of interest.
2) Being fundamentally always in opposition to the country due to some deep territorial or ideological disagreement.

Naming a nation as 'Enemy number 1' is not helpful in the 1st case. In the 2nd case 'like the Soviet Union' its valid but pretty much self evident.

I think modern Russia is in the first category.

The only nations currently in the 2nd category are basket cases like North Korea and nations we need to pretend are friendly until they've run out of oil.

Of course it's not how it is being spun, the media has an EXTREME liberal bias. Romney clearly stated in terms of VOTES AT THE U.N. no nation opposes the U.S. as much as Russia does. Those are his words. The media wants to spin it to make Obama look good. Never mind Obama flat out stated recently Egylt is NOT an ally. He was corrected by every level of his government and Obama never issued another word, and the media gave him a complete pass.

ETA: This is Romney's exact words.

Romney: "There's no question but that in terms of geopolitics -- I’m talking about votes at the United Nations and actions of a geopolitical nature -- Russia is the No. 1 adversary in that regard. That doesn't make them an enemy.

So tell me, is he wrong? No. Is the media spinning it into something sinister? Yes. Wonder why that is?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by justwokeup
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Perhaps its what he meant but its not how its perceived or bring spun.

There is a difference between:

1) Being in opposition to another country on specific issues due to conflict of interest.
2) Being fundamentally always in opposition to the country due to some deep territorial or ideological disagreement.

Naming a nation as 'Enemy number 1' is not helpful in the 1st case. In the 2nd case 'like the Soviet Union' its valid but pretty much self evident.

I think modern Russia is in the first category.

The only nations currently in the 2nd category are basket cases like North Korea and nations we need to pretend are friendly until they've run out of oil.

Of course it's not how it is being spun, the media has an EXTREME liberal bias. Romney clearly stated in terms of VOTES AT THE U.N. no nation opposes the U.S. as much as Russia does. Those are his words. The media wants to spin it to make Obama look good. Never mind Obama flat out stated recently Egylt is NOT an ally. He was corrected by every level of his government and Obama never issued another word, and the media gave him a complete pass.

ETA: This is Romney's exact words.

Romney: "There's no question but that in terms of geopolitics -- I’m talking about votes at the United Nations and actions of a geopolitical nature -- Russia is the No. 1 adversary in that regard. That doesn't make them an enemy.

So tell me, is he wrong? No. Is the media spinning it into something sinister? Yes. Wonder why that is?

edit on 16-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

The actual extract clarifies it nicely.

What he actually said is pretty impossible to disagree with.

reply to post by justwokeup


Pretty much. On the other hand we have Obama making concessions, and even wanting to give Russia information on our Aegis Missile Defense, the first line of defense for EVERY Carrier group, with getting nothing at all in return.

I do not see Russia as our Cold War foe, I think they still see a zero sum world where hurting the U.S. will always be good for them. The way forward is to let them know that will not be tolerated, they need to stop aligning themselves with the worst actors in the world, and they need to work to advance the position of stability, prosperity, and peace.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by justwokeup

 

Pretty much. On the other hand we have Obama making concessions, and even wanting to give Russia information on our Aegis Missile Defense, the first line of defense for EVERY Carrier group, with getting nothing at all in return.

I do not see Russia as our Cold War foe, I think they still see a zero sum world where hurting the U.S. will always be good for them. The way forward is to let them know that will not be tolerated, they need to stop aligning themselves with the worst actors in the world, and they need to work to advance the position of stability, prosperity, and peace.

I think thats part of it. An instinctive opposition to the US/UK/France is present without doubt.

However, that can be overcome with diplomacy and time. There has been much co-operation in areas where they see a benefit.

I agree with you about giving Russia performance data on Aegis system/interceptors is folly. Its a concession to make the BMD policy palatable when the correct approach is to scrap the policy. Its the global equivalent of 'security theatre'.

A real nuclear assault on the USA/EU/UK wont come on a missile. It'll probably come in a shipping container. The money would be far better spent on intelligence services.

reply to post by justwokeup


I agree, which is exactly why Iran can not be allowed to gain nuclear technology. I am less worried about Iran launching nukes at us, more worried about them supplying nukes to terrorists to try to do exactly what you said. Then what do we do? It's not like Russia or China launching at us, how do we retaliate against it?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by clearmind
aaaand..romnney called russia a 'foe' now there are alot of dictionaries out there and here is just one...

foe:

a person who feels enmity, hatred, or malice toward another; enemy

dictionary.reference.com...

so intranslation foe= enemy.......dont matter what WE think...

No, he did not. He called them a geopolitical foe. Sucks when truth doesnt fit your agenda. So give me his EXACT quote and a detailed analysis of what was wrong about it. Thanks.

edit on 15-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

YES HE DID.
He said FOE.
FOE means ENEMY.
What did you miss?

I don't want to keep repeating myself. Let's make this simple. Give me his EXACT quote and a detailed analysis of how he is wrong. Do not bother responding if you can not do so, myself and everyone else here will take it as an admission from you Romney is right.

edit on 16-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

No, I asked you first.
Please explain as simply as you can what the difference between "enemy" and "foe" is or else you are admitting you are wrong.