Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Bob Dylan Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Grocery The Baby Store Shop now Amazon Cash Back Offer LoveandFriendship LoveandFriendship LoveandFriendship  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Outdoor Recreation SnS
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Mitt Romney; Super Hawk.

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 44 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 9, 2012 12:21:09 PM PDT
Sock Puppet says:
He has already let it be known in certain circles, that militarily, he will get tough. Under no circumstances will he let Iran, get the bomb. Many war weary troops are not in his corner. Getting tough in today's world may be a hard sell.

Posted on Jun 9, 2012 12:25:31 PM PDT
But will he send HIS sons to help that cause? I seriously doubt it, he will only send other peoples sons to fight those battles. Only the little people that don't matter. His sons will stay state side counting the money the war efforts bring them personally.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 12:57:54 PM PDT
Monica Harris says: "But will he send HIS sons to help that cause?"

Nah. They have their knitting circle on Wednesdays.

Romney will send other people's kids to fight his war.

And I wonder how the world's oil supply will fare when after we attack Iran, radical Islam everywhere attacks oil infrastructure?

Posted on Jun 9, 2012 1:02:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 1:04:06 PM PDT
Mende Mui says:
In this day and age, it's safe to say that warmongers are usually those people who don't like to personally sacrifice their own lives, but have no problem sacrificing the lives of others.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 1:08:56 PM PDT
Suze says:
He's surrounded by Bush's neocons...

Posted on Jun 9, 2012 1:13:38 PM PDT
Suze says:

January 5, 2012
Mitt Romney embraces the neocons



Republican presidential candidate and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney in Salem, New Hampshire on Jan. 5. Photo by REUTERS/Brian Snyder

The top three vote-getters in the Iowa caucuses - Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx.) - responded to success in very different ways.

Santorum, best known for his antediluvian views on gay rights and choice, emphasized the economy and job creation. Paul, keeping with the themes he has focused on his entire career, talked about personal freedom, the need to restrict "big government," and preventing a new war in the Middle East.

And Romney, who is at this point the frontrunner for the nomination, started his speech by discussing the purported failure of Barack Obama to confront Iran.

With the economy still in the doldrums, Romney sees Iran as the most serious problem facing Americans.

ROMNEY: We face an extraordinary challenge in America, and you know that. And that is internationally, Iran is about to have nuclear weaponry, just down the road here. And this president, what's he done in that regard? He said we would have a policy of engagement. How's that worked out? Not terribly well. We have no sanctions of a severe nature, the crippling sanctions put in place. The president was silent when dissident voices took to the streets in Iran and, of course, he hasn't prepared the military options that would present credibly our ability to take out the threat that would be presented by Iran. He's failed on that.

Next, Romney turned to what he sees as the second biggest threat to Americans: "And then how about with regards to the economy..."

His disturbing emphasis on Iran, which in no way presents a military threat to the United States - over the economy, no less - is very telling.

Romney insists that the administration's engagement efforts have failed. Not quite.

Obama has hardly engaged in any diplomacy with Iran. After an initial foray in that direction, he quickly pulled back, deterred first by the Iranian government's crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in 2009 and then by a Congress that, guided by AIPAC, vehemently opposes any negotiations with Iran.

According to Iran expert and journalist Barbara Slavin, the Obama administration has spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct engagement with Iran.

Romney's claim that "we have no sanctions of a severe nature" is just as false. The sanctions regime imposed by Obama is unprecedented in its severity. (Take a look at the full range of sanctions.)

According to a law signed by Obama in December, as of next summer, anyone who buys Iranian oil will be banned from doing business with the United States. We have the largest economy in the world, so this act could do much to damage not only Iran's economy but also the economies of some of our most trusted allies, like South Korea. If Iran retaliates by keeping its oil off the world market and causing prices to skyrocket, the dire effects will be felt globally. Including here at home.

Sanctions will probably not succeed in preventing an Iranian bomb (since the days of the Shah, Iranians of all political stripes, including the Green Movement, have supported Iran's right to nuclear development) but it is just absurd to argue that Obama has resisted imposing them.

As for the claim that Obama was "silent" when Iranian demonstrators took to the streets, Romney must know that America's embrace of the demonstrators would have been the kiss of death. Or maybe Romney actually believes that their cause would have been advanced if they could have been convincingly portrayed as U.S. puppets.

The remaining Romney charge is the only one that matters because, unlike the other two, it is not just an example of misinformation or prevarication. It is a clear indication that Romney believes that the only way to deal with Iran is through war.

What else can it mean when Romney says that Obama has not "prepared the military options"?

Of course, Obama has. The president and the U.S. military fully prepare war contingency plans for use in every volatile international situation. To assert that they have none for Iran (a major U.S. adversary since 1979) is really an accusation that Obama is not ready for war now. Romney, on the other hand, clearly is.

And why wouldn't he be?

Romney told us where he stands on Iran (and the Middle East in general) on October 7, 2011, when he announced the 22 members of his foreign policy team.

Fifteen of the 22 worked on foreign policy for the George W. Bush administration and six were members of the original neoconservative group, Project for the New American Century, that famously called on President Clinton in 1998 to begin "implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power." Its rationale: Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

That was three years before 9/11 (after which members of the group decided, without any evidence, that Saddam Hussein was behind the monstrous attacks).

Clinton ignored the letter.

But, four years later in 2002, the next president, George W. Bush, with an administration packed with neoconservatives, heeded PNAC's new call, not only for the removal of Saddam but also for an end to serious U.S. support for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

In that second letter, the neoconservatives were more explicit about where they stood and why.

No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an "Axis of Evil." Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles - American principles - in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has pointed out, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all engaged in "inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing" against Israel, just as they have aided campaigns of terrorism against the United States over the past two decades. You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr. President. Israel is fighting the same war.

Bottom line: The United States and Israel had the same enemies - specifically Iran, Iraq and Syria - and therefore had to engage in "the same war."

A year later, the United States invaded Iraq.

Today, with U.S. troops finally out of Iraq, the selfsame neocons are pushing for war with Iran (the first target proposed in the 2002 letter to Bush).

Last time they wanted to fight because they claimed, without tangible evidence, that Iraq had WMDs.

This time they want to fight because they claim, without tangible evidence, that Iran is developing them.

With even less evidence, they insist that Iran would gladly use a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel even if it meant the destruction of Iran. And they have successfully sold their line to the likely Republican nominee for president.

Can the same gang fool us twice?

As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow put it: "With the greatest American failure in American policy hung around their necks, with the Project for a New American Century neocon fantasy a punch line now, Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate has decided to embrace them."

It is like a terrible joke.

The people who helped inflict one of the worst disasters in U.S. history on the American people are back to do it again. And the leading GOP contender for the presidency is following their lead.

To make it even worse, there is little indication that the incumbent Democratic president has decided to resist the war lobby's push for conflict.

There is some good news, however.

In 2008, as he was preparing to leave office, President George W. Bush was urged by the same advisers (led by Vice President Dick Cheney) who had advocated invading Iraq to give Israel permission to bomb Iran.

But Bush, to his credit, was skeptical. Additionally, the Cheney neocon team was weakened by the departure of three of the most influential war enthusiasts: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Scooter Libby. All three had left the administration unmourned by Bush and with their reputations in tatters.

Bush turned to Rumsfeld's replacement, the anti-neocon Robert Gates, who told him that attacking Iran or allowing Israel to do so could turn the entire Middle East into a cauldron. Bush wisely said "no."

It is hard to believe that his Democratic successor would say, "Okay, let's bomb. It will be fine." No Democrat is going to be more neocon than a Republican.

But Romney wouldn't hesitate. That is why the neocons will be voting Republican this year. They are determined to get their old influence back and their next war started.

God help us if they succeed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 1:54:41 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:00:33 PM PDT
It's certainly going to be a hard sell for the Bamster.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:01:49 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:02:34 PM PDT
You think Iran is going to storm the beach at Atlantic City?

Posted on Jun 9, 2012 2:07:34 PM PDT
And those would be the ones who cant find jobs in Romney world so must join the military to survive. All sent to unnecessary wars by the "artful dodger himself". While my brother risked his life in VietNam, Willard was sipping wine in France and evidently if his story is to be believed, knew nothing about any war in VietNam. Good thing for France they now have newspapers and news programs.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:08:57 PM PDT
Romney was no different than most rich guys at the time. Wars are fought by the poor.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:10:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 2:10:58 PM PDT
Christopher Gwyn says: "You think Iran is going to storm the beach at Atlantic City?"

Well, as Bush always said, "We gotta faight 'em there afer they come here an faight us here and all that... I got that raight, did'n I, Mr. Cheney?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:12:43 PM PDT
That never did make any sense.

Posted on Jun 9, 2012 2:17:30 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:28:03 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:29:16 PM PDT
I'm not scared, are you?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:30:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 2:31:25 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:31:29 PM PDT
So If I was smart like you, I'd be all skeered right now?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:33:41 PM PDT
When you're feeling all scared of Iran do you lock your door?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 3:09:20 PM PDT
Sock Puppet says:
Yes, and he will inherit the war machine, still tooled and ready to make money. I think troop suicides may be related to fighting the world's poorest people, still living in haphazard huts, who don't have any idea of what's going on, and the idea of killing innocent people for vague reasons, disturbs their psyche.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 3:10:26 PM PDT
That makes sense.

Posted on Jun 9, 2012 3:12:16 PM PDT
Captain says:
Speaking today on ABC's This Week, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta reiterated comments made in the past by other officials that the US is "ready" to launch a military attack on Iran and will do so as soon as President Obama decides to.

"We will do everything we can to prevent Iran from developing a weapon"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 3:13:20 PM PDT
Suze says:
John McCain and John Kerry were poor?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 3:14:45 PM PDT
There are always exceptions to the rule. What percentage of soldiers do you think were in that tax bracket?
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Politics forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
3411 Apr 23, 2016
I miss Father Ben. 8196 7 minutes ago
The latest polls are showing both Hillary and Trump to be the most unpopular presidential candidates EVER. So how did they get nominated ? 96 17 minutes ago
What Causes Poor Uneducated White People To Vote Republican? 917 19 minutes ago
Donald Trump is going to blow Hillary Clinton out of the water..... 21 19 minutes ago
And Gun Control Starts - in DimDem California! 68 21 minutes ago
Bernie Sanders Sounds Like Hitler, Without The Cresendo. 56 26 minutes ago
Salon: Trump Will Win 150 26 minutes ago
Leftist Facists in Albuquerque NM @ Trump Rally 5 36 minutes ago 109 40 minutes ago
Trade pitch turns BO into salesman for Vietnam shoes 0 41 minutes ago
Harvard tests show parental neglect causes homosexuality and also bisexuality 2362 47 minutes ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  44
Initial post:  Jun 9, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 10, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions