If you watched the debates on foreign policy, and it is amazing how many who have so much to say did not even watch them, you would have seen all of the great experts so much more knowledgeable about foreign affairs than Mr. Cain, when asked what they would do about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and China.....
Every single one of them gave a different answer.
Iran was the best example. The suggestions ran the extremes of make love (Ron Paul) to bomb them. Sanctions, blockades....
Now if they are all so up on the topic, tell me why they did not agree.
The fact is that none of them, without privy to a high security briefing by the CIA, the military, etc., do not have enough information to make a decision.
So they were all just running their mouths.
The silliest of all were the suggestions of sanctions and a blockade.
We have had sanctions against Cuba for 50 years and Castro is the longest living dictator in modern history.
As for blockades, I assume that would mean that any Russian or Chinese ship or plane would be fired upon when they attempted to breach the blockade.
Why don’t I like that idea? Well, I well remember WWII and I am not looking forward to WWIII.
Before you accept the MSM’s anointed experts and condemn Cain, think more about how widely varying the experts were in their opinions. That should scare the hell out of you.
The examples you list demonstrate why we shouldn’t elect someone as president who tells us merely that he would listen to experts, consider the facts and decide what is best: people with different political philosophies will come to different conclusions, and so it is important for us to understand what someone’s approach is going into the office.
Cain hasn’t a clue, so we can’t have a clue as to what he would do as president.
But, there were candidates who all strongly agreed on the principle of peace through strength and holding the line on the defense budget. Romney even suggested increasing it as the world grows more hostile, if I'm not mistaken.