http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-foreign-policy-speech-text

There is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East—and it is not unique to that region. It is broadly felt by America's friends and allies in other parts of the world as well— in Europe, where Putin's Russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, and where our oldest allies have been told we are "pivoting" away from them … in Asia and across the Pacific, where China's recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region … and here in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in Latin America want to resist the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepen ties with the United States on trade, energy, and security. But in all of these places, just as in the Middle East, the question is asked: "Where does America stand?"

In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

I will support friends across the Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty against our common enemies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are just some excerpts from the entire speech.

Some of his statements really give me the chills, like the 'who share our values'...

The Taliban appreciated their American weaponry as well.

My experience is that most European countries (including both their governments and their citizens) favor Obama over Bush. I don't think Americans understand how hated Bush was outside America, even in those countries considered friendly to the US.

What Romney implied in his speech is in many ways a return to the Bush-era, which I am certain would be devastating to US-foreign relations.

The days when US could dictate the world order are long gone. That has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with a natural change of the playing field. The US can either adopt to this (the Obama way), or resist it (the Romney way). I believe such resistance is futile, since it will have an impact on other issues. It will restrict foreign trade and lower exports. Romney's way will in other words lose American jobs, Obama's way is more likely to create jobs.

I'm pretty sure that 70% of his foreign policy advisors are from the Bush administration, so chances are that there would be another war. Most likely with Iran and/or Syria.

"there must be someone who wants our weapons and can secure our oil/resources in these countries"

No. Because he's not going to win.

That said... we already have a warmonger in office so....

As for "Share are values... Obama has said the same thing... and what's chilling about wanting to support people who are for Democracy, Woman's Rights and the like?

For the most part I haven't seen anything in this speech which is substantially different from Obama's current strategy ...

It's the same shit as Obama, with a different rhetoric twist.

There is almost no difference here between obama and romney on foreign policy, i dont understand how people think there is a huge difference, like hamister.