By Bruce Stokes, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Bruce Stokes is the director of Global Economic Attitudes at the Pew Research Center. Full survey results are available here. The views expressed are his own.
Foreign policy is the forgotten stepchild of the 2012 U.S. presidential election. At a time when the United States is engaged in the longest war in its history in Afghanistan, when in the eyes of foreigners U.S. stature as the hegemonic power is in question, and when a euro crisis could derail the American economy’s tenuous recovery from the Great Recession, voters choosing their next president are turning inward, preoccupied with domestic affairs to an extent unprecedented in recent times. Nevertheless, when the national security of the United States is seen as threatened by Iran or terrorism, voters remain aggressively internationalist.
Mitt Romney, in his speech accepting the Republican presidential candidacy, failed to mention the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the civil war in Syria or the legacy of Iraq. NATO, the principle U.S. security alliance, was ignored. There was scant reference to China. And the single mention of Russia was intended to show that Romney would be tougher than president Barack Obama in dealing with Moscow.
Obama devoted more time to foreign policy in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, reminding voters that he ended the war in Iraq, has set a withdrawal date for Afghanistan, has been tough with China and would not restart the Cold War with Russia. But he too made no mention of Syria or NATO.
Romney’s downplaying of foreign policy appears more in line with voter concerns this election season. Roughly eight-in-ten (83 percent) Americans now believe that the United States should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems at home, according to an April Pew Research Center survey. Such isolationist sentiment is up 10 percentage points since 2002. And, for the first time, it is higher among Republicans (86 percent) than among Democrats (80 percent). But, in a sign of the partisan nature of this shift, while Democratic isolationism has fallen seven points in the last five years, it has risen 19 points among the GOP.
Going into the 2012 presidential election campaign, just 9 percent of Americans said they thought the president should focus on foreign policy concerns, 81 percent said he should preoccupy himself with domestic issues. Just five years ago, in 2007, 40 percent of the public put international issues at the top of their presidential agenda.
This domestic preoccupation is reflected in voters’ attitudes toward specific items on the next president’s international agenda.
Six in ten Americans think the president should remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible, according to an Pew Research Center survey in April. This includes 66 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents. Republicans are split – 48 percent supported removal and 45 percent backed keeping the U.S. troops in Afghanistan, possibly one reason Romney failed to mention the war in his acceptance speech.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans, meanwhile, say the United States does not have a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria, according to a Pew Research Center survey in March. And when asked more specific questions by CNN in mid-August, they opposed sending ground troops into Syria and were divided about establishing a no-fly zone or supplying Syrian rebels with arms. In contrast, in 2006, roughly half of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center said America should do something about the ethnic genocide in Darfur.
However, there is no such reticence to engage internationally and to use force when U.S. national security is deemed to be at stake.
When Romney said in his acceptance speech that “every American is less secure today because [Obama] has failed to slow Iran's nuclear threat,” he was touching a nerve he knew was sensitive.
About nine in ten Americans oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, according to a 2012 Pew Global Attitudes survey. And, of those, 63 percent support the use of military force, if necessary, to deny Tehran a nuclear arsenal.
Similarly, three quarters of Americans support U.S.-led efforts to combat terrorism around the world. And 62 percent approve of the U.S. conducting drone missile strikes to target extremists in places such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. This includes a majority (58 percent) of Democrats and nearly three-quarters of Republicans.
So, as Americans head to the polls this November, they are wary of new entangling foreign engagements. But such domestic preoccupation is not the same as passivity. Americans remain ready to use force in defense of U.S. interests.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Folks, don't be fooled by the right-wing news media when they say that our idiotic foreign policy has nothing to do with the current depression that we're in. That's tantamount to saying that Santa Claus has nothing to do with Christmas! As long as we keep on expanding into the Middle East and Central Asia, we're going to outspend ourselves and eventually break the national economy. This, none of our right-wing politicians will talk about!
Every time one of you left wing mouthpieces talks about military action and the economy I just want to shake you until the sense pops back in your head. Military action is paid for through taxes. The tax rates haven't changed yet, therefore the money is paid over a long term. The economy is independent from that taxation and is dependent on the markets. Our current economic woes have virtually nothing to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but were the the result of banks and real estate developers leveraging credit that didn't exist to build on the housing market and inflate the prices. It actually stems more from the sub prime mortgages Clinton signed into law that any military action. It was a bubble that was bound to pop. Please, for the sake of logic and to prevent more people parroting the same inane dribble, please refrain from talking about the economy until you understand economics.
You must be the guy Bill Clinton was talking about when he said Republicans don't know arithmetic.
Dude, seriously, you need to come up out of that basement and stop smoking that stuff. Your disconnect between, wars, their cost, taxes, is unreal. But at the same time we must all apologize to you, after all, you are a product of a US educational system that ranks low in the modern world. It's not your fault.
i12bphil, I agree that greedy bankers and brokers who had absolutely no problem developing and selling – then reselling – what they knew to be toxic loans and other investment vehicles popped the US economic bubble. However, that bubble was adequately supported by a massive surplus GWB inherited from Bill Clinton. We could have survived Wall Street's greed (it may have been bumpy but not a complete melt-down) had GWB been able to cowboy-up and along with a declaration to invade Iraq introduced a War Tax that would have supported that action. This is the way wars have been financed in the past – not just out of general revenues. And... to further muddy the economic waters GWB didn't even turn to general revenue to finance the Iraqi War – he turned to China for financing via various financial tools... all of which are going to come back to bite the US in the future.
Hey! Someone is finally making sense! Thank you! I kinda thought that "common sense" was no longer common.
Lets see, you are saying that the trillions we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 700 billion a year we spend on the military have nothing to do with our economy? One would think that our economy would be doing better if we spent most of that money on infrastructure, research, product development etc instead of weapons and military bureaucracy.
No more FOX no-so-news for you mister. Either that...or make sure your scripts are accurate – you sound like you're off your meds
wow you just went full retard
You attempt to speak on the "color of money" here but completely miss the point. A major part of the economic issue is our inability to effectively deal with the National Debt. The National Debt DOES effect our economy. It limits the ability of Local, State and Federal governments to contract out for public projects, which in turn enables more people to work. It also eliminates most useful options in dealing with a bad economy, hence a slow economic recovery.
I completely agree about the subprime mortgages; however, if one bad policy could ruin an economy we'd have been done along time ago. I could explain more but I'm not going to bother writing a 3 page long causal effect paper about economics and military spending since you are obviously an economist and I don't want to bore you with my logical "inane" dribble. Good word usage though, you like trying to sound like the smartest person in the room right? I'm sure your MBA impresses your high school friends.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Taxes have nothing to do with the economy? What have you been smoking? Markets are the only thing that affect the economy? How deep is that hole that you have buried your head in? Any time the government changes tax rates what do you think is the first thing that happens? The Markets React! Nice try Homer, but you don't know what you are talking about either. Anything that affects the money in the everyman's wallet effects the economy.
Right, the gas that goes in tanks is free, right? We just put that on our tab? The wars were committed to with no new revenue. So without a new revenue stream, the wars in essence went to our national debt, and they continue to do so. Thank God we stopped one, and we can't stop the next soon enough.
"Our current economic woes have virtually nothing to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," and there goes any shred of credibility. Next, he'll tell us not to blame Bush, and then rave about Obama's birth certificate.
@i12bphil show me the part of the legislation that required banks to give people bigger mortgages than they could afford.
Hint: that part doesn't exist. Keep blaming the crisis on poor people though if that's what makes you feel better. Head in the sand.
What about a war tax that has been introduced with every conflict, except Iraq and Afghanistan? These wars were paid with general funds.
If military action is paid for by taxes then wouldn't it make sense less tax dollars would go towards the military if we get out of the wars and could divert that extra amount in taxes to something that makes sense. The Reps scream about using taxes to fund anything other than the military. With these wars winding down to divert more tax dollars towards military spending makes no By the way you don't have to be a liberal to disagree with someone so stop making assumptions about anyones political slant make you look land sound like an Ass.
Patsy:
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000–though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994).
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero–let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 – 38 = $95.29 billion.
Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.
Sorry, but I beg to differ. After President Bush invaded Iraq in an unneeded war, refused to suspend the uneeded tax cuts given without a reason like recession, he then submitted an "emergency" budget for both wars each year and just added it to the National Debt each budget. These wars will end up costing us over 3 Trillion bucks. I am an old timer, but even in todays inflated dollars it sounds like real money that probably would have replaced most of the old rundown schools in the United States instead of enriching Eisenhowers so called Military Industrial Complex. And this old Vietnam vet though we learned a lesson after that disaster, bringing about the Powell Doctrine, but apparently neither Bush or his warprone advisers bothered to read that or, as the experts are wont to say, "This time it is different!". Those folks, such as John Bolton and others are adivising Mr. Romney, see "Russia is our greatest enemy" and other stupid remarks on his part.
NauticalMan: You are aware that Federal Income Tax revenues INCREASED following the Bush Tax cuts, right? IF not, you can easily find that information online.
And you should not write until you learn English. One does not parrot "dribble". One parrots "drivel". Learn the difference. As for the effect of two wars on the economy, consider this. Bush CUT taxes while waging two wars. That's the first time in history that any leader has something that illogical. In the history of the wars of Europe, if a king wanted to wage war, he sent his tax collectors around to get the funds from his subjects. These two wars have put us into deep, deep debt as we charged them to the national credit card. Yes, a part of it also stems from bad behavior on Wall Street, predatory lending from banks, and the like, and the sum total was an economy on the brink of depression and a debt that will take generations to pay off. In the mean time, congressional republicans have not been interested in helping the economy to recover because they know that it would ensure Obama's re-election, and as Mitch McConnell proudly stated in his speech to the Heritage Foundation: (paraphrasing) Our top priority must be to ensure that Obama is a one-term president. So thank you, republicans for all you have done to destroy our economy, add to our debt, and the stall the recovery effort.
Obviously you failed at studying history or any economics. Our wars of Iraq and Afghanistan are wars that have been paid for by borrowing. In all the other wars taxes were raised, materials were rationed, etc. No GWB and the GOP simply wanted people to go out and do some shopping thinking it would pay for it. These two wars have cost us close or perhaps more than $5 Trillion dollars thanks to the GOP's plan. But it will have to be dealt with and paid for by the citizens.
Remember, a vote for Romney is a vote to raise your taxes near or over $2,000 a year, and at the same time give the wealthy another much needed tax break. Obviously when the GOP says "No New Taxes," they mean those that make over $350K+ a year. I doubt that many of the GOP supporters that keep talking the party line actually participate in these boards.
Think about it...
@i12bphil, both you and Quigley jumped too quickly to conclusions. The depression we are facing is linked to a number of intricacies. Of course the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had been costly. Not just the country had overspent, the private sector as well. Cheap interest rates and mortgages induced people to spend and buy. The export economy didn't grow etc. The country has to fill its coffers again. It's doubtful if Romney could do the job with his economic policies.
What nonsense. Clearly you didn't take advantage of our education system.
One would think if the state of our economy is tied to war spending, we'd have been in a recession since 2001. Is it good to run up debt? Absolutely not. But to say the wars are strictly at fault is not really dealing in reality.
...and who pushed the law through Congress that allowed banks to sell sub-prime mortgages? Even wrote the legislation?
Newt...Newt...Newt...remember him?
112bphil – Can you explain when they show the debt chart of the US, there is a large line for unpaid wars, right under a much larger line showing the Bush Tax Cuts? Why did George Bush keep the wars out of his budget?
Quigley,
Your assessment is so parsimonious and so precise it baffled the long-winded yet wrong-headed i12bphil. He would, no doubt, also use the "they hate us for our freedoms" argument to explain the global antipathy towards the US.
Are you actually suggesting CNN is the right wing media? Or have you just failed to notice the constant barrage of stories trying to garner public support for Syria and Libya. Is Obama right wing now?
"Are you actually suggesting CNN is the right wing media?" To extremists, moderation looks like activism. We're all the enemy because we don't share his views.
Of course the CNN is right-wing but not quite as far to the right as FNN. Obama wants to set up another right-wing pseudo-democracy in Syria similar to that in Libya. By and large, it appears that the so-called "Arab Spring" is headed for failure bigtime except for Egypt and Tunisia!
The only kind of involvement the USA should play out in Syria is to support the Assad regime if anything at all..That's right, I said support the only one of two Islamic nations where Christians in those nations are pretty safe that is Syria under Assad and Turkey. Now here's where Syria comes out ahead under Assad than even the NATO member Turkey: Muslims are free to convert to Christianity in Syria without repercussions from any in that nation. Whereas in Turkey , extremists have been known to strike/kill the the new converts and attack or warn the Christians who do evangelize..and quite frankly the only reason for a Christians to exist on the earth is to give Jesus to the next guy.
If you support the Assad regime in Syria just because someone told you that it's okay to be a so called Christian, you are woefully misinformed. The Mukhabarrat, which is the secret police organization in Syria are hard core torturers. A case in point, they hired and provided housing and police protection for a former Nazi torturer who designed some particularly horrible devices that were used on "enemies of the state" which included Christians and Syrian Jews. After the invasion of Lebanon by Syrian forces, the few Lebanses Christians left in the country were rounded up or chased up into the mountains by the Syrians. You have absolutely no idea what you are speaking to sir.
All of you in this thread are completely lost when it comes to having a mature thought in your head
"All of you in this thread are completely lost when it comes to having a mature thought in your head" Namecalling in the name of being more mature? Good one, Beavis.
So essentially, Republicans are just pandering to what people want to hear while Obama is actually presidential. Okay, got it, Republicans are liars and obstructors who just want power and their supporters are ignorant and foolish.
" Okay, got it, Republicans are liars and obstructors who just want power and their supporters are ignorant and foolish." You are coming late to this party.
right, because there is NO way that a democrat ever lied, misrepresented, spinned a truth, or anything like that...EVER.
Dems aren't rich, nope not a one of them, most particularly the ones in government. Nope, they are virtually volunteers, ever so devoted to their American people. Never heard a Dem lie, take advantage of 'insider' information, write a book to capitalize on their position...nope, never happened. Dems are supernatural, always believable, none of them are even so much as a a little well-to-do financially.
yup, it's true...don't even question it.
Rome was self destructive by trying to control too much of the world by using oppressed citizens as warriors.The U.S. is now spreading itself a little too thin around the world ,much to the chagrin of our citizens.As an American,I believe we are not the worlds policeman,that we fought for our freedoms and it wasnt handed to us so we respect it more than anything else.Until these other so-called oppressed countries fight to obtain their freedom,they will never really respect it like we do.
By the time Rome went under, most of its troops were foreign mercenaries. The use of Roman Citizens as principal soldiers stopped by the middle of the 2nd Century AD.
remember joe,in those days,many men were forced out of necessity and poverty to become mercenaries because it was one of few things oppressed citizens could do to earn money.I take by your statement that you are educated and realize this fact.
The cost of war is beyond imaginable, especially when, as this article points out, Americans prefer to think of themselves and their wants first. It costs BILLIONS of dollars for ammunition, food, supplies, and to maintain not just the troops, but also their families and the inevitable long term mental and physical medical costs incurred by those lucky to survive.
Young Americans are in the Middle East RIGHT NOW losing lives and limbs for little more than political points. Their heroism and their losses do NOT bring this country freedom, they do NOT protect this country's freedoms, and they do NOT 'spread' freedom (the most ridiculous concept ever dreamed up) but they do it anyway because they believe they are doing something righteous. It must be a terrific blow to them when they come home and find ordinary Americans unable to find the war zones on a map, whose 'suffering' is limited to whether or not they can afford the new i-pad or to continue to support their Starbucks habits. Not only are people in this country disengaged from foreign policies, military efforts, and global economies, disasters, and suffering, the people in this country are downright selfish, eager to engage in promoting their right to freedom of speech through disrespect and gossip about whose fault their plight lies with. We have very few political leaders willing to stop wallowing in such mud, and hardly any citizens willing to step up to plate to unite for any common cause. In the meantime, people are starving and dying in wars and for lack of health care both in this country and the world over. Our priorities are gone. Our sense of humanity is gone. Our 'Christian' values are nonexistent.
What of the "brave soldiers" who use the military to have children whose birth is fully paid for, housing fully paid for, healthcare fully paid for, and then come home to VA benefits like reduced rate home loans, student loans, and continued medical benefits. Many of the military are there to serve their country far more are there to serve themselves.
Welll said. This article was slightly boring. The statistics were interesting, but who is CNN polloing? Why is Israel so important to us? They're trouble-makers and expect the USA to get them out of trouble they create.
" Why is Israel so important to us? They're trouble-makers and expect the USA to get them out of trouble they create." Worth answering; they are our tightest allies in the Middle East. We were part of the UN which decided to put a Jewish homeland in that area instead of buying Bermuda or something safer, so we owe them. They are the most badazz country in the world, pound for pound, and they remind me a bit of Wild West settlers. They are surrounded by countries eager to literally invade them and kill every man, woman, and child, and these countries are frightened of them. They are the kind of people you want as friends, and the enemy of my enemy is also my friend.
Hugh Jass
" Why is Israel so important to us? They're trouble-makers and expect the USA to get them out of trouble they create."
Try naming some of the trouble they have created ?
Without making up lies !
You should tell Obozo that
Foreign policy was has been moving in the right direction and would have moved much faster and further with out
GOP obstructionism. Give OBAMA clear majority in both houses and watch foreign and domestic policy successes take
off like a rocket...quickly and in the right direction!
Reblogged this on All Things Geography and commented:
When it comes to the mental map of the Average American, it seems that America...and all of it's current issues and problems...dominate the landscape while the rest of the world appears quite small and distant. Not completely gone from their minds, but still a distant set of places and issues.
..and the Pacific Ocean is very wet.
And your point is...?
It's more like American's have realized that we need to pay off our bills, do the laundry, clean out the Garage, replace the roof and fix the foundation before we resume our volenteer work to the international community. You can't help others if you can't help yourself.
I can agree with that 100%.
Well Said!!!!!
I have British friends and I see them once a year at a conference. Most of my attention is at home, where I live. But I am no peasant, if that's what you are getting at.
Reblogged this on ............
Self promo ?
Do you think anybody cares ?
We need to take care of our own. The "World Community" is a joke and so is the UN. Better to educate our own children and take care of them ........ than to send money somewhere else to be stolen by war lords and corrupt officials.
We borrow, so we can give it away ???? Are we nuts !
not if we get something in return
yeah, we get oil for food.
Yes, we are nuts! Only american christians pray at their dinner table to god asking 'him' to give the same food they eat to the poor and needy, while at the same time are suggesting that the very same people need to go and find a job and fend for themselves...
You are nuts.
You only have one planet.
All you seem to care about is yourself.
Too many people like you who dont care if your neighbors
house burns down, as long as it doesnt affect your house.
Selfish.
Our politicians have failed to leverage our military spending into prosperity at home. Until our foreign policy starts bearing some tangible fruit, they should expect budget cuts. We spend 100's of billions to police shipping lanes in Asia and we're rewarded with stagnant wages and rising unemployment. Our policy has become so incoherent it borders on stupidity.
If they think this "new normal" is politically sustainable, they're in the wrong line of work.
NorCalMojo
Our politicians have failed to leverage our military spending into prosperity at home
Actually they have done a great job.
You fight, they get rich.
Works pretty well dont it ?
They have a motto....."No profit in peace".
Americans and the rest of the westernized world have turned inward since 9/11 and due to the rise in self-technologically-satisfying devices – even my old recreational clubs, once popular when it came to large group events are now struggling to hold something as simple as a picnic. Why? Because most would prefer to stay home and only associate with a very small circle of friends through electronic devices – terrible...
I am not sure you got this right....How about those self indulgent types who, although inward and self isolated, at the same time they broadcast everything about themselves to their so called friends and the world on facebook and other 'social' (sic) media....
The purpose of Foreign Policy is to AVOID crises in the future. We may feel that foreign aid or wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a waste of money, but you have to imagine what might happen if we DON'T do those things. What wars, terrorist attacks, famines, explosions of disease are we PREVENTING through these proactive approaches? And how much is that worth? Like all AMericans, I'm tired of us doing all the heavy lifting regarding the worlds problems, and it would be very satisfying to say "screw it" and retreat into isolationism. But it wouldn't be long before the world's crises came crashing on our doorstep again. It may not make a good bumper sticker, but steady, moderate, quiet intervention by the U.S. in the world's fiscal, social and health problems is probably the best bet we have.
Sid
I fail to see how meddling in other countries on the thinnest of pretexts prevents anything bad from happening. We did not go to Afghanistan to fight the citizens of Afghanistan, but to find bin Laden and make him pay for 9/11. We did not go to Iraq for any good reason at all. In the 1950s we did not go to Iran for any noble cause, but to stop their forming a democracy. We did not get involved in the Middle East in the early 1900s or the middle 1900s for any prevention – we went there to make sure WE got a piece of the oil pie and to help establish a US-friendly base known as Israel, even though it meant alienating trusting Arab nations forever. (THREE generations of Palestinians have grown up in what was supposed to be temporary refugee camps as people awaited their promised sovereignty after they helped oust the Ottoman Empire.) WE do not belong in the Middle East, as WE have no priorities there that isn't purely selfish. WE do not care for their peoples, their cultures, their histories. their suffering, and we certainly don't want them electing their own officials into their own governments. If the Middle East is now a powder keg waiting to explode and hurt us, we have only ourselves and our decades-long meddling to blame.
We went into Afghanistan so that in the future they will think twice before allowing terrorist to freely train in their country or to use their country as their base to attack us. I think the Taliban got the message and will think twice before allowing the next Bin Laden free reign
Ehhh, it was kinda convenient to have Bush go nuts and invade Iraq for "looking at us funny," just to listen to the Muslim countries yelling at us to not attack people just because you don't like them. True, they had zero to with 9-11, but Bush apologists will still claim they did, and nobody misses them anyway. Their whole point with the WTC attacks was to let us know that they were dangerous crazy people who might attack innocents for no reason, and we had better watch out for them, so it was kind of horrifyingly funny that we retaliated by bombing innocent people in the wrong country. Hey, watch out for the USA too.
Katie,
We went into Afganistan to build a pipeline from Uzbekistan, into Afganistan and into
Pakistan, so we could control the oil being shipped to China.
The Taliban would not let us build that pipeline.
Just like magic, we get 911 and Osama Bin Laden.
We overthrow the government in Afganistan, and put "Karzaia" (spelling) in as president.
Who is Karzai ?
He was on the board of "unical" the oil company that wanted the pipeline.
So, we use American taxes, and American troops to fight a war for oil.
Who built the pipeline ?
HALIBURTON.
Agreed. And personally, if we do go isolationist, we should include one caveat to the world. Screw it up again and get us involved, our FIRST option is nuclear. No holds barred; we'll stay out of your business but if you get us involved, you face extinction.
Dude you are playing way too much Call of Duty. Nuclear really? You realize that we are not the only country with nuclear capabilities right, if there ever is a nuclear war we will go back into the dark ages again.
You do realize the world turns , don't you? Nuclear bombs anywhere in the world is like bombing yourself. Did you ever see the reports about cancer rates going way up in the years following Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
allthingsgeography1 statement is fair enough. Especially when you consider that the in-your-face problems we are currently facing as Americans is bound to be our first priority, compared to even compelling issues going on in the world right now. The Syrian massacre is horrific, but a man or woman's first priority is finding a decent job to pay the bills. Right now, the problems at home are more compelling and immediate than the problems in other countries.
......We MUST get our OWN HOUSE IN ORDER. We MUST STOP THESE UNENDING WARS, esspecially the UNNECESSARY gop WARS. We MUST REBUILD our own country first. After we regain our (yes, gop's) COLLECTIVE ECONOMIC POWER, then we can again HELP our brothers and sisters around the world.
Fareed... YOU ARE KILLING ME!
We just can't win can we? OH MY GOD! WHAT A TRAVESTY!! AMERICANS ARE ACTUALLY MORE CONCERNED WITH THEIR OWN COUNTRY THAN OTHERS... What are we going to do?
I'm sure that if we rolled out tanks into Syria that you'd be whistling a different tune though right?
Our foreign policy is unrecoverable.. the Bush Administration solidified that. Non Americans don't like us, they will never like us and guess what... I'VE STOPPED CARING... Now I know what the Germans felt like after the Holocaust – constantly having to justify that they are actually a nation of decent people, while the world turned a deaf ear. Now it's our turn.
Excellent. So you'll stop trying to control everyone else with thinly veiled threats and dump all that "leader of the world" crap?
Yes, when all of you stop forging visas, rely on U.S. aid and soft border enforcement, to come here and tell us how we ought to prop you up here financially and adopt your culture, ALONG WITH the plethora of frauds you use to bilk the U.S. taxpayer and STAY HOME YOURSELVES.
Romney has promised to increase military by (2) trillion dollars more than the Pentagon wants, and he will not say what it will be used for. Maybe he is going to war with Russia.
Neither does he say how he intends to pay for this.
Republicans are bad at math.
...and bad at remembering recent History as well.
Hey it's about time we turned inward. Let's take care of ourselves first.
Joseph McCarthy/Quigley/LyndsieGraham/krm1007©™/Joe Collins/J. Foster Dulles/Marine5484/OldManClark/ Willie12345/KillerO'Bama/Patrick-2/USMC Forever
You are the same guy, a PMS (Pakistani Muslim Sc um. You are a useless piece of camel dung who works at the moron stage. You post anti-American, anti GB, anti-Semite, anti-India, anti-modern anything. You steal Patrick’s moniker because you are so ashamed of yourself and you post the most stupid comments because you are an imbecile. Mohammed the pedophile has taught you well. When people get angry with you, you claim they are the stupid ones. If you are not careful, your brain will explode because it is so full of hate and puss.
You do not speak for most Americans, only the few the rest of us are most ashamed about.
Sure thing Katie err Fatma.
It doesn't surprise me that foreign and defense policy have been ignored by both candidates, other than the occasional fear mongering. The problem is that neither Obama nor Romney have any military experience and not even one of Romney's sons has or plans to serve in the military or other related services like the diplomatic service.
I hate to say it, but when it comes to foreign policy and defense, the Obama administration and a possible Romney administration are both a disaster. For Obama, hesitation and indecision unless it plays well in the press are the order of the day, and if we get a Romney administration it'll be like Bush on steroids without any supervision of the neocons.
Yes. No jobs, 401K gone, no savings for over half of population, unaffordable health care and education, huge national debt. Jeee...what a surprise, turning inward. Who would expect something like that ?
What kind of stupid questin is that.
Foreign aid continues, with domestic cuts? Who else does that. Do you see Greece giving foreign aid? I am wondering why not? Why would that be, Einstein?
Turning inward is not necessarily a bad thing for the world if we use the time to acknowledge and fix our own problems. Just like a ball team depends on all of the players being strong at their position, we need to have a solid economy and society to take our place as a mature country. Running from place to place interfering in the politics and economics of other countries without having our own house in order makes us look like immature little brats that don't know what we are doing.
"It's the economy, stupid". funny that what was relevant 20 years ago didn't make it's appearance last Wednesday night. Would have been perfect since it was the theme of Clinton's successfule 1992 campaign.
What right does any non-American have to American tax dollars anyway? Stop the wars and illegal alien invasion.
My child sits in a class room that is 90 degrees because it doesn't have air conditioning. My father hasn't worked in 2 years. So yes, it's time for Americans to look inward. Stop wasting trillions on MEANINGLESS wars. Stop sending young people to get their limbs blown off. Start taking care of US. That's spelled U.S. for a change.
Unlike businessmen and politicians,America's people are concerned with America's future.To hear business tell it though,we are being unrealistic in our demands that established companies built on the backs of American labor give back to and support our own people simply because we refuse to deal with slave wages and anti-american businessmen.Claiming it's just business is a cop out and self deciept,it's our lives they hold in their hands so it's life not business and as such,these men will be judged in the after life for their sins against us and humanity.
Test
Over the past 60 or so years, the Republicans in Congress have been the ones that beat the drums of war the loudest, whenever there was a possibility that US business interests could be served. Whenever a Democrat was President and was finishing up on a war, including returning the troops to home, the Republicans have been the ones that called for isolationism. We had nothing to gain in Bosnia, so the Republicans were opposed to it. We lost NO troops or equipment in Libya, but the Republicans were opposed to it because Haliburton did not have contracts with the Libyan government. Now the Republicans are sounding the war drums over Iran and its surrogate Syria even though every senior member of the US military has told them that based on current manpower, equipment and training that we CANNOT win a war against Iran. Granted, there are some Republicans opposed to our military intervention in Iran. Amusingly enough, just about all of them are Veterans. Amazing how those who never would consider wearing the uniform are always the first to want to place our troops in harm's way.
"Amazing how those who never would consider wearing the uniform are always the first to want to place our troops in harm's way."
You got that right... usually old white guys too.
The hegemony has become so routine that it no longer warrants special attention. Now both democrats and republican share a love of military intervention and "spreading democracy" by drone bomb. It's just not special anymore.
Why worry about the World, when we can't even take care of ourselves? Let the outside world burn. We are safe behind our oceans. Any conquering enemy boating over can be spotted by our satellites and nuked in the middle of the sea where no one cares about it.
Cleveland must be so proud of you. The rest of us hope you're returned to your padded cell this afternoon.
We live in a global economy.
What happens to the rest of the world, happens to us.
You too stupid to understand that ?
rinse and repeat; agreed! now when are china and india going to stop polluting our air with their coal-burning electric plants> they, the emergent world leaders, are certainly concerned with their self-interest at the price if the world's health, why should we not also be so?
Should McDonald's make burgers? or fries?
"Six in ten Americans think the president should remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible"
So why don't our elected officials heed these thoughts? We, the people, are being forced to pay for an un-winable, undeclared war yet again... at an enormous cost in life and treasure.
Get the H E L L O U T N O W ! ! !
Yeah, what you said.
Lets pull 37,000 troops out of Afganistan now,
and put them in the unemployement line.
Let those poor children get acid thrown in thier face because they went to school.
Let the Taliban and Al Queda take over and spread to other countries.
You can go back to your sandbox now.
I don't think "inward" is correct, but running around like chickens with the heads cut off and lacking intelligence is more appropriate and correct.
"lacking intelligence"....... Yeah, like voting against their own interests as in voting for the GOP. Hahahahahahahaha
Mittens is an incompetent buffoon. How in Gods name would you not mention Afganistan when we have 85,000 young men and women over there in harms way every day. That is not an over sight, its because people like Mittens couldn't give a damn about the sons and daughters of middle class Americans who are willing to die for this country all they care about is their wealth and the bottom line. Just disgraceful
wasn't paying attention, but did the republicans call for the exit of the US from the UN like they always do?
It's important to point out when we speak of the wars effects on our economy and Presidential Politics that Obama did not end the war in Iraq. In fact, he worked very hard to keep our troops there, and in essence, to keep the Iraq war going.
It was the Iraqis that ended the war, through legal means, not conflict. It GWB who signed the "SOFA" with Iraq, not Obama, and that was the means to the end.
The Iraq government was in talks with President Obama to keep troops
there longer to avoid instability.
The Iraqi government however wanted the right to prosecute any military
personel involved with attacks involving civilians.
In other words, if an Iraqi insurgent tried to shoot an American soldier, and the soldier
killed the Iraqi, the government wanted to haul the American soldier into
a civilian court room.
Obama, rightly said no thanks.
The liberals don't believe that it was Obama that ended the war just ask them. Had nothing to do with the plan and time table put in place by GWB and Iraq. However I'm sure if Mitt is elected and the Afg war ends with him in office they sure as heck won't give credit to Mitt for ending the war.
Never in history have we had such a symbiotic relationship with other countries pertaining to how they affect our
economy. Looking out is entwined with looking in. This article is a gross generalization and myopic.
Hey Liberals,
If Mitt is elected and the war in Afg. ends with him in office (per the time table laid out by Obama) are you going to give Mitt the credit for ending the war, Like you claim credit for Obama for ending the war in Iraq per GWB's time table?
If Mitt is elected and the war in Afg. ends with him in office
I wouldnt worry about that.
If Mittens gets in the white house, you will find us in
Syria and Iran, regardless of Afganistan.
Should we give Mittens a pat on the back from pulling out of Afganistan
when we find ourselves with 2 new wars ?
He wont make it to the white house anyway.
It would take a miracle, or some major vote rigging.
Obama's polarizing politics threatens civil war in the US. Obama has destroyed the poor and the middle class. NO ONE ELSE. You don't threaten job creators – businesses – unless you want them to do something. The job creators have decided.
Obama hates employers. Don't hire until the moron is out of office. Every business in the US knows that. You might not like it. But the fact remains. Employers will not begin hiring until Obama is gone. The poor and the middle class need to make a decision. Do they want to be more poor and less middle class or do they want jobs. They can march on Washington any day they want and demand Obama resign. Or they can vote Democrat and watch their kids starve.
Obama hates Smurfs.
Today president Obama ordered the Military to attack the Smurf Village,
claiming papa Smurf was a terrorist.
All the Smurfberries have been confiscated as WMD.
You are a bigger threat to this country than Obama could ever be.
would you feel better if Obama were white?
Keep drinking the right wing koolaid....and by all means....vote against your interests....if you think after 8 years of failures in the Bush administration can be "fixed" quickly then I suggest you haul your sorry a*** to Lourdes and pray for a miracle.
@ russ: Jimmy Carter was white. I disagreed with his politics, too.
You'll lose every argument if all you do is make it about race.
"Twas ever thus:
Charity begins at home.
If I have a surplus you can have SOME but if I'm not filled you're not getting ANY!
What national security?
People traipse across our borders with impunity because they know Barry needs the votes.
Not all are guest workers.
The reason most Americans are turning inward is because most of the money spent on helping/developing/defending these other countries are bleeding us dry, that money should be spent here.
If you were helping someone learn how to fish and you broke your leg you would stay home until you were better, then go help. The US needs to heal before it can help.
It's not that we want to meddle in other countries affairs or that we need to defend our interests. It's just that it's so much fun to drop bombs on people! We can't get enough of it. What better way to take our minds off of our problems than dropping some bombs on poor people around the world.
I think we HSOULD be worried about our own house first. When cutting budgets, cut the aid packages to other countries first, and take that money to invest in our own citizens and infrastructure. What is left can then be given out to others.
I got a better idea. Cut aid to countries that hate us and use the money to pay down our children's debt.
Left wing....Right wing.... you are bad.......no, you are bad...... Sounds like my daughters daycare. Both sides are guilty and we all know it. We were once all proud Americans. Now we stand divided. "We the people"......"No, We the people" Tastes great!.....Less filling! We have been conquered by a beer commercial tactic. Maybe......Just maybe if we worked together, we could solve some of these problems and get our house in order.
Democrats are preoccupied with losing their jobs to other countries and their hard-earned houses to corrupt banks. Republicans are obsessed about stopping people they've never met from having abortions and are preoccupied with inserting "intelligent design' in school textbooks. That's the problem folks... until we eject these retrogrades from public life, down is the only way for us. They are too distracted pushing their dogma down the nation's throat to be effective leaders at all.
There are a lot of us that are tired of fighting the world's battles. The whole world not just the USA benefits when we strong arm tyrants into behaving. The world benefits from the relative peace so if we are going to act like a security firm let's at least get paid like one. For those people indicating we cause a lot of the violence I would ask you to honestly ask the question how peaceful things would be if the USA was not in the front line.
Not only are we turning inward when it comes to foreign policy, we're turning inward with regards to domestic policy. People are realizing they need to look out for themselves, the nanny government days are coming to a close.
Romney's plans for new tech jobs: We must reform America’s legal immigration system to attract and retain the best and the brightest, and equip more Americans with the skills to succeed. I will raise visa caps for highly skilled foreign workers, offer permanent residence to foreign students graduating with advanced degrees in relevant fields, and restructure government retraining programs to empower individual workers and welcome private sector participation.
He's right, we need to bring in smart people from other countries and loser Americans can get jobs mowing their lawns.
I still wonder why Obama claims he ended the Iraq war. We left Iraq on the timetable that was created under Bush. Obama tried to get Iraq to let us stay longer in Iraq, but that was rejected. So, his failure is somehow to his credit?
Bush had a "Horizon." You know, one of those things you walk towards all your life than you never get any closer to? Obama set a date.
Paul I agree Obama should not get the credit for planning to get out of Iraq, but he should get credit for actually following through, particularly since John McCain stated clearly that he would not have withdrawn. Thus, if McCain had won, it is likely we would still be in Iraq. In addition for not getting credit for planning to get out of Iraq, Obama should get the credit for the for the weak economy that also was a result of the Bush administration.
Garbled there – ...Obama should not get the blame for the weak economy given to him by the Bush administration.
We need to globalize inovation and progress and stop ignorance, fear and hate. I have a blue pill that solves all of that at once....
Take two of them and call Barack Obama in the morning.
Bush's folly in Iraq has ruined our economy more than any other factor.
At some point it boils down to cost. It's costing us too much money and too many American lives to run all over the Middle East (and now Africa) trying to save people who have no respect for our way of life. When it gets down to it, we're also spending too much money on social services such as lifetime benefits for welfare (Obama has nearly doubled money to his favorite voters), public housing (have you seen how nice the newer buildings have become?), Obamacare (which again, is for his favorite voters who will pay nothing), and food stamps (which are all too often sold for cash so people can buy drugs or pay their boyfriends. Have you looked at how much money is paid to workers in social welfare programs are earning? It's mostly clerical work and yet they are earning money that PHD's would be proud of. Americans no longer want to support these types of actions/programs.
> Americans no longer want to support these types of actions/programs
You've spoken to every American? Where's your poll data?
If we are indeed turning inward, why all the hoopla with both parties about Israel. Why does a country on the other side of the world, about the size of New Jersey, has such importance on our lives? Is it the lobby?
In many ways Mexico is attacking us. They may as well be sending troops. Yet Bush, and now Obama, send troops to fight terrorism. Meanwhile, we are being take over by illegals.
If you don't take care of your own business.....you are in no position to take care of someone else's business
where are th jobs?
You didn't build that. Someone else did it for you.
GOP: inward self inflicting economic crusaders that lead to boom and bust losing economic cycles and threatening the roots of democracy
DEM: progressive forward thinking and leading to economic progress with stable predictable democracy reinforcing growth
Chose wisely or die.
Have Americans turned inward? No. We just reelected Jimmy Carter.
But we'll fix that problem in November.
You betcha!
Isn't that the same in all island people? Something like Galapagos. Isolated creatures do tend to develop differently. And İn their daily life in their cosy islands they may "dislike" foreigners. This is called xenaphobia for some time in psycology. Xenaphobia may reach over the border and become a "UFO watching event" or well..." being kidnapped by extracelestials".
European or Asian people are as far remote from the common Americans as the E.T. Well, other than those who have migrated into USA ages ago. I do not believe that tha common American people have a sense of the rest of the world. Or care about it.
Unlike EuroAsia their lives have ever been secluded. Where Europe did suffer and mastered the ways of democracy, USA had the evolution of a sepereate island. It will take the common Americans sometime to get accustomed to a global world.
Sept 11 was a inhuman and shocking reminder that there are other people out there, beyond the island.
Everybody is right or left and wrong
Outside is a burden, only US, only me
The world by the way, it's one
Everything, everyone is connected
It does not matter who is wrong or wrong
It only matters who you are connected
You mean dropping superficial knowledge in pursuit of a greater existence? Dropping age-old concepts that don't function in a modern world? Hahaha, my friend, we are not but Americans in a world of chaos and no direction.
Welcome to being a human run by chemical processes. Maybe the reason we're so on edge is because this era of war brings everything up to your face. The pictures say it all. If watching the chronological frame of pictures in Syria from the tank blast doesn't stir your emotions... You aren't getting the point. Imagine if war was in your front yard, like so many Americans today have to deal with on the various streets in well populated cities. Race is definitely a factor in these neighborhoods.
Just ask the local crack dealer on the street what areas to avoid. Gangs are derived from the violence and poverty these individuals saw and had to deal with on a regular basis. We are all in a state of misunderstanding and mistrust. We have lived for so long thinking we have to have someone to hate. Someone to vent our human anger at and attempt some sort of social prowess over the rest of everyone. Whether that be material or over the internet or gossip at a public setting. We do this simply because we are human. Until we realize we're all basically on the same page and that superficial things like "age-old concepts based on false truths" are nothing but barriers to the human mind. We can't go anywhere.. but down.
Wait, a thought. Why don't we just assume that he's right and she's right and whatever you want to believe is your lot in life. Another thought.. Why do I have to hate you because you're a Republican, or a Democrat, or Muslim? Or a Jew? Or a Crip? Or a Blood? Or MS-13? Or Mexican Mafia? It makes no sense to the gangsters or anyone else really. We just do work because we must.
If there is anything to learn from this transition to the internet age its that if you lie, you will be uncovered. If you attempt to brigade yourself as a criminal, you will be caught. And if you attempt to overthrow your government, please have a backup plan that doesn't involve a religious organization. And please humanity can we find a better chemical process for transportation that doesn't involve screwing the place we reside on or those living on it?
Awwuu! Awwuu!! Awwuu!!! Awwuu!!!! Awwuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!....
You all barking-UP (united pets), on wrong tree.
If you serve America, Militarily, you should learn responsibility, respect and civility.
Some of your discussions are aimed to disrespect the American Greatest Armies, who fought day and night for you, me and for next generations of the World.
You know, it is so simple, to be behind the key-boards and to type all kinds of gossips. But, it takes a real heart and mind, carrying 75 KG Militarily equipments and being in Iraq, Afghanistan,...and other strange places, due to a call to serve.
Please, respect the American Armies. They know, what we don't know.