The Observations :
(1) The topic of the, " Third American Presidential Debate ", between President Obama and Governor Romney, was supposed to be about the United States' foreign policy. Romney tried more than once to dwell on the economy. the moderator of the debate, being a good man, was too kind to call Romney's attention to adhere firmly to the topic of the debate, foreign affairs. But, Obama responded forcefully in kind. I wish he did not; and let the American voters reach their own conclusion about Romney's deviation from the topic.
(2) Although two years ago, Obama, as the President of the United States, held an International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, attended by the majority of the countries that had/has nuclear weapons, no mention was made of such an extremely important subject for the safety of future generations of the human race. In spite of the fact that the Conference has not produced concrete resolutions, the fact that it was held, in the first place, should have a far reaching meaning, more than the eye could see, at the present time. None of all that was mentioned, let alone discussed constructively.
(3) Iran should not develop nuclear weapons. Period. So should not any another country in the globe. Period. However, demanding from Iran to abandon its nuclear activities, while the members of the countries of the exclusive, " Nuclear Club ", keep continuing stock-piling more nuclear arsenals, instead of being a role model in reaching an international accord to eliminate and destroy all nuclear weapons in their arsenals, indicates, at least to the writer of this essay, mountains of hypocrisy. Certainly, both debaters, either overlooked this hard fact or ignored it. Either way, it simply does not make sense ignoring or overlooking nuclear disarmament, in such important Presidential Debate.
(4) Sadly, both debaters were competing with one another for giving blind support to whatever Israel did, whether right or wrong. At the same time, ignoring the daily suffering of the human beings, the Palestinians whom Israel mistreats, humiliates, violates daily their human rights, through 45 years of military occupation of Palestine. The question, " why they hate us? " becomes so foolish to ask.
(5) The bloody conflict in Syria is so complex, military intervention will make it even bloodier. All major powers, ( U.S.A., Russia, China, France and Britain ), know that without their joint agreement to end the blood shed in Syria, through the United Nations' Security Council, the conflict will continue unabated, and the dangerous potentiality exists for the conflict in Syria to spread out to the neighboring countries, including Israel, Turkey and Iran. Syria is not Libya. Unless the big powers act jointly, in good faith, all the efforts of Al-Akhdhar El-Ibrahimi, the United Nations' envoy to cease the hostility will fail, as all attempts of Kofi Anan, have failed before him. Ignoring this reality and substituting it with words of bellicosity, during the debate, is self defeating and will not stop the blood shed in Syria.
The foregoing is only an outline of a longer list of observations about the third debate. The intent in writing this essay is merely to help the readers who are interested in exploring more scrutiny, concerning the debate so that the American readers who are voters on November 6, 2012, will be more knowledgeable about both President Obama and Governor Romney and where they both stand on important issues in foreign policies, before they cast their votes. It is imperative for the voters to know as much as possible where each one of the candidates stands on these important issues, since the position of each debater, on the foregoing issues may determine the trend for war or peace, although constitutionally, only the United States Congress can decide whether the United States can go to war or not. But, never underestimate the Power of the Presidency of the United States of America.