Mitt Romney will start more wars [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Mitt Romney will start more wars

Mjau!
11-16-2011, 04:52 AM
Romney's National Security Team Is Like the Second Voyage of the Titanic

Republican Candidate Calls Up the Team that Gave Us Iraq

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney revealed yesterday the national security advisors (22 special advisors as well as leaders of 13 separate regional and issue-specific working groups) behind his plan to ensure the 21st century is an American Century (making sure the United States remains dominant in political, economic, and military terms). This is the second go-round for this crew and a Project for a New American Century, a neoconservative think tank. The last time they tried this strategy, they brought us the war in Iraq, which former Reagan administration head of the National Security Agency Gen. Bill Odom called “the worst strategic disaster in U.S. history.”

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/10/romney_advisors.html

These people can now be found in think tanks like The Foreign Policy Institute and the Brookings Institution and are pushing hard for war with Iran.

"It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force. And now we have an engraved invitation to do so. The plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was a lemon. Statesmanship involves turning lemons into lemonade. So we can stop talking. Instead, we can follow the rat lines in Iraq and Afghanistan back to their sources, and destroy them. We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime’s nuclear weapons program, and set it back."
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/10/corporate-funded-policy-makers-clamor.html

The Brookings Institution wrote in 2009:

It would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/10/no-one-is-buying-iranian-terror-allegations.html

@Sweet Cleopatra
11-16-2011, 06:06 AM
It's scary there are people who think like that.

Seingeist
11-16-2011, 06:15 AM
Loving your sources, Mjau. :rolleyes:

And here I thought that it was mostly Americans who had any interest in our leftist shit-sites.

MaxPower
11-16-2011, 08:48 AM
US is not in a bubble anyway and the president isn't a dictator. They can't upset the arabic nations further nor the UN. Not to mention the own public opinion which won't look too kindly on a new war, especially not if the motivation behind it would be linked to potential WMDs.

On top of that the US government can't really afford any long time war commitments at this stage (already got so many resources bound up abroad) and runaway domestic debt.

So I wouldn't give much for these theories.

Mjau!
11-16-2011, 05:05 PM
Loving your sources, Mjau. :rolleyes:

And here I thought that it was mostly Americans who had any interest in our leftist shit-sites.

The sources are straight from the horses mouth, you dummy! :stupid: They are quoting PNAC. They are quoting the FPI. They are quoting the Brookings Institution. The sources could not possibly be any better. PNAC wrote paper after paper after paper calling for military intervention and regime change in Iraq. PNAC members were big shots in the Bush administration and the Pentagon. PNAC members set up the OSP and falsified intelligence. PNAC members were on TV, lying to the american people and the world, before and after the invasion. Those are facts.

Frankly, it's :o that you know so little about your country's foreign policy.

Seingeist
11-16-2011, 06:56 PM
The sources are straight from the horses mouth, you dummy! :stupid: They are quoting PNAC. They are quoting the FPI. They are quoting the Brookings Institution. The sources could not possibly be any better. PNAC wrote paper after paper after paper calling for military intervention and regime change in Iraq. PNAC members were big shots in the Bush administration and the Pentagon. PNAC members set up the OSP and falsified intelligence. PNAC members were on TV, lying to the american people and the world, before and after the invasion. Those are facts.

I read the sources, "you dummy," but you apparently paid very little attention to the manner in which they were attempting to make a case and draw connections. Cherry-picking out-dated quotes and loose associations do not make an ironclad case that Romney and his cabinet are going to dash the country off to war.

There's a lot of bad information on those absurdly biased trash-sites, Mjau, and most of it is cobbled together with a few real quotes or news items. Might I suggest that you incorporate a few more reputable websites into your political e-reading.

Frankly, it's :o that you know so little about your country's foreign policy.

What comments have I made about American foreign policy? I merely commented on the argumentative credibility of those websites.

As a rule, foreign policy is not something that I tend to enjoy discussing with "enlightened" persons such as yourself who have 9/11 conspiracy theories in their signatures. And you wanted to talk about what is "embarrassing"... :facepalm:

jmjhb
11-16-2011, 06:58 PM
Out of interest, Seingeist, do you believe everything the American government and media says?

Tommy_Vercetti
11-16-2011, 07:11 PM
Scare tactics again. This would be like the Bush will bring back the draft in 2004 bs. I love this line. We should elect Kerry because he served four months in Vietnam and recommended himself for a bunch of medals while we should elect Obama over a legitimate long-time military veteran. People with this mentality are worse than the PC politicians.

Mjau!
11-16-2011, 07:46 PM
I read the sources, "you dummy," but you apparently paid very little attention to the manner in which they were attempting to make a case and draw connections. Cherry-picking out-dated quotes and loose associations do not make an ironclad case that Romney and his cabinet are going to dash the country off to war.

There's a lot of bad information on those absurdly biased trash-sites, Mjau, and most of it is cobbled together with a few real quotes or news items. Might I suggest that you incorporate a few more reputable websites into your political e-reading.

What comments have I made about American foreign policy? I merely commented on the argumentative credibility of those websites.

As a rule, foreign policy is not something that I tend to enjoy discussing with "enlightened" persons such as yourself who have 9/11 conspiracy theories in their signatures. And you wanted to talk about what is "embarrassing"... :facepalm:

It's not cherry picking. It's a fact that those people pushed hard for war with Iraq and are now pushing for war with Iran. You cannot deny this. It's so easily demonstrable. Just read what they said then and continue to say today. PNAC was the source of the Iraq war mongering and Iraq lies. Read their papers, look at who wrote them and signed them, look at the Bush admin, look at the OSP. Mitt Romney's advisors are culled from this war-mongering group that lead you to Baghdad, who are now lobbying for new ME wars in new neo-con think tanks. There's nothing ambiguous about their words. It's crystal clear what they want. Romney would be a continuation of GWB in the ME because he's surrounded by the same people.

Mjau!
11-16-2011, 07:55 PM
What's so difficult to understand?

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

“Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. ... moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.”

“It is easy to lose sight of the fact that we are in Iraq as part of a global war on terror. There is no question that Iraq has become the key battleground of this war.”

“Failure to leave a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq will leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States.”

“The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time. … it is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.”

“A nuclear Iran would force us to develop and deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons. That’s the only way to convince Tehran that any attempt to use nuclear weapons against us would fail to achieve their political or military objectives—whatever they might be.”

"It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force. And now we have an engraved invitation to do so. The plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was a lemon. Statesmanship involves turning lemons into lemonade. So we can stop talking. Instead, we can follow the rat lines in Iraq and Afghanistan back to their sources, and destroy them. We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime’s nuclear weapons program, and set it back."

"It would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be."

It really is unclear. :scratch: :stupid:

Mjau!
11-16-2011, 08:09 PM
The saber-rattling against Iran amongst the Republican primary candidates has been out there and it is no doubt a genuine concern that the same neo-con policy "thinkers" are lining up behind certain candidates. The OP is right to be concerned.

However, there is a huge flaw, one that I'm surprised the critics in this thread haven't noticed: the problem isn't that a war on Iran isn't a likely scenario under a Republican President but that a war on Iran is already a real possibility under President Obama.

In Obama we are talking about a president who has escalated civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the drone program (the combined total of criminals executed in Texas under the watches of Govs. Bush and Perry is far smaller than the deaths of civilians in Af/Pak under Obama's orders). We're talking about a president who touted his background in constitutional law when giving lip service to rule of law and government transparency and then turned around and declared that assassinating US citizens without due process or any explanation of the rationale is perfectly legal. We're talking about a president who justified a wholesale invasion of Libya on "humanitarian grounds" and yet has not bothered to overthrow the US-backed govt. in Yemen for the same reasons, despite the fact that the humanitarian situation there was/is far worse.

You want to talk about scary advisory teams? Obama campaigned against Clinton on the strength of his anti-war credentials against hers, only to give her a top post in his administration (where she has been doing quite a bit of saber-rattling against Iran herself) and invite nearly all of the Clinton old guard back into the White House: the same people responsible for the mass bombing of Serbs, the deaths of 1,000s in Iraq due to sanctions, and the slow and steady neoliberal economic pillaging of Haiti.

There is much to fear with a Romney/Republican presidency, but the implied solution in much of the narrative around this issue is that the other major party candidate will save us from war, and the last two Democratic presidents have proven that to be categorically false.

Sadly, this is very true. It's difficult to find a pro-peace candidate. :sad:

Tommy_Vercetti
11-16-2011, 09:07 PM
It's nothing compared to the "sabre rattling" that Iran has done for decades towards Israel and the US. Why don't you complain about that.

Mjau!
11-16-2011, 09:25 PM
It's nothing compared to the "sabre rattling" that Iran has done for decades towards Israel and the US. Why don't you complain about that.

Short history of US intervention in Iran for :stupid: such as yourself.

KMFCr10oav0

Furthermore, the US and Israel have been sabre rattling against Iran for 15 years now. They were "5 years" away from acquiring nuclear weapons in -96. :rolleyes:

Tommy_Vercetti
11-16-2011, 09:26 PM
Why don't you answer the question. There has never been anything like the Death to America and wipe Israel off the map crap from any American politicians. Yet it is endlessly spewed by Iran.

I don't understand why you don't care about that, only the US.

Mjau!
11-16-2011, 10:31 PM
Are there really people who believe that Iran would nuke Israel, thus ensuring their nation being turned into a lifeless wasteland? :unsure:

Are there really people who believe that Iran, a theocracy, would nuke the holy land (Jerusalem is the third most important city to muslims)? :scratch:

Tommy_Vercetti
11-16-2011, 10:39 PM
So you think it's unlikely and therefor people can spew threats of extermination and stir hatred, but when Romney or someone points out Iran's connection to terrorism and the real threats they could pose if they develop nukes and give them to terrorists, then that's cause for major concern?

And I won't even dignify the crap about him not using whatever word for map from some needle-dick European socialist translation. He has called for Israel's destruction and encouraged violence and hatred against both the US and Israel since he came into power. Anyone that refuses to acknowledge that is beyond any redemption.

Why aren't you protesting in NY?

tangerine_dream
11-16-2011, 11:21 PM
I wonder Mjau! is aware that the US is involved in more wars under Obama than it was under Bush?

wee
11-29-2011, 09:29 AM
Out of interest, Seingeist, do you believe everything the American government and media says?
well, the short answer is YES.

fast_clay
11-29-2011, 09:47 AM
Why don't you answer the question. There has never been anything like the Death to America and wipe Israel off the map crap from any American politicians. Yet it is endlessly spewed by Iran.


Iran just talk shit. Of that there is no doubt. But the USA actually go and do shit. In how many countries again...? Have been for decades. Big difference. And in the name of freedom too :spit: Dumb yank.

Some f**king c**t parks three elephants in both of my neighbours backyards, the pachyderms laying dump after massive dump... just f**king smashing the place up these big smelly c**ts. I know I'm probably next so damn f**king right I am gonna say something about it. You expect anyone with half an ounce of self respect to sit back and take that shit in silence...? :haha:

:spit: turn off fox news and have a f**king think mate.

Pretty soon, when your broke, and china pulls their money out you'll be the same guy saying 'Huh? How come all this sh!t is happening to us? What'd we do?'

I wonder Mjau! is aware that the US is involved in more wars under Obama than it was under Bush?

The tool that Bush is just increases as time goes by.

Stensland
11-29-2011, 10:26 AM
america neither has the willpower left nor the capacities (be it human, political or financial resources) to start any more major wars within the next couple of years. militarily it's obivously an option that's never gonna be off the table, but at best washington is just going to let someone else go ahead and refrain from intervening, like israel attacking iran etc.

so wouldn't read that much into romney's squad. the age of nation building by western countries is pretty much over.

buddyholly
11-29-2011, 01:29 PM
Are there really people who believe that Iran would nuke Israel, thus ensuring their nation being turned into a lifeless wasteland? :unsure:

Are there really people who believe that Iran, a theocracy, would nuke the holy land (Jerusalem is the third most important city to muslims)? :scratch:

Possibly religious fundamentalists who care only for the next life?

abraxas21
11-29-2011, 02:05 PM
Possibly religious fundamentalists who care only for the next life?

solid reply. should win you the argument.

Lopez
11-29-2011, 02:07 PM
Possibly religious fundamentalists who care only for the next life?

Yeah that's what scares the shit out of me when it comes to Iran's nuclear program.

The US and Russia are sensible enough not to nuke the world into oblivion. Iran, I'm not so sure. They might be relishing the possibility of getting the 72 virgins each (or whatever the number).

abraxas21
11-29-2011, 02:21 PM
Yeah that's what scares the shit out of me when it comes to Iran's nuclear program.

The US and Russia are sensible enough not to nuke the world into oblivion. Iran, I'm not so sure. They might be relishing the possibility of getting the 72 virgins each (or whatever the number).

oh dear... do they have fox news in finland too? :facepalm:

Lopez
11-29-2011, 02:33 PM
oh dear... do they have fox news in finland too? :facepalm:

Fortunately not, I despise Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the gang. They're only good for humor value.

However, I can't deny that I wouldn't be worried about the Iranian nuclear weapon program for exactly the reasons stated. If they are religious fundamentalists who believe that they're doing God's work and will be blessed in the afterlife by doing so then god knows what they might do.

Mind you, I'd be even more concerned if the US or Russia were run by likes of Aloimeh. Thankfully they're not.

Stensland
11-29-2011, 02:40 PM
you don't actually believe these people would seriously consider nuking finland, right?

abraxas21
11-29-2011, 02:42 PM
Fortunately not, I despise Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the gang. They're only good for humor value.

However, I can't deny that I wouldn't be worried about the Iranian nuclear weapon program for exactly the reasons stated. If they are religious fundamentalists who believe that they're doing God's work and will be blessed in the afterlife by doing so then god knows what they might do.

Mind you, I'd be even more concerned if the US or Russia were run by likes of Aloimeh. Thankfully they're not.

sure... it's not like an american president has ever uttered words like these:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God".

you're a biased man, lopez. you attack places like iran ignoring the fact that that countries like the USA have been involved in far more wars than them and have attacked with little or no provocation smaller nations in the middle east.

but you'll keep believing those iranians are the bad ones, categorizing them under stupid little stereotypes of their faith and ignore everything else.

Bilbo
11-29-2011, 02:48 PM
I wonder Mjau! is aware that the US is involved in more wars under Obama than it was under Bush?

And who started the wars?

Republicans are known for their wars. Imagine that war lover McCain would have won the elections.

abraxas21
11-29-2011, 02:53 PM
And who started the wars?

Republicans are known for their wars. Imagine that war lover McCain would have won the elections.

when it comes to foreign policy, republicans and democrats aren't that much different from each other. they're both warmongering hawks.

obama is a prick but then again anyone with 2 working brain cells was able to see that from the get-go. his successful marketing 'change to come' campaign coupled with the facts that he was relatively young and black helped him win the votes of deluded yanks who were tired of bush and earned him the admiration of masses of gullible europeans and other assclowns around the world. however, it only took a few clicks on google to know that he was a politician ready to serve the US's interests at the expense of third world countries that needed to be sacrificed for the price of cheap oil and the promotion of the 'american way of life'

wankers all of 'em.

Lopez
11-29-2011, 03:26 PM
you don't actually believe these people would seriously consider nuking finland, right?

Of course not, but I'd rather they nuke no one...

sure... it's not like an american president has ever uttered words like these:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God".

you're a biased man, lopez. you attack places like iran ignoring the fact that that countries like the USA have been involved in far more wars than them and have attacked with little or no provocation smaller nations in the middle east.

but you'll keep believing those iranians are the bad ones, categorizing them under stupid little stereotypes of their faith and ignore everything else.

Oh come on, even if I have problems with the US and their overly religious attitude, you can't seriously be comparing religious freedom in the US and in Iran. That's ludicrous.

And no, I'm no fan of the US global policing. Just don't like to have a nutter with their hand trembling over the red button thank you very much.