Republican Primary

[Elle_C]

Christ was about turning the other cheek and loving your enemies as you love your brothers. Peace through strength is satanic. It is something I’d chalk up to the Sith (for all you star wars nerds out there)

I’m not going to turn a cheek to those that would kill my countrymen on our soil. I’m not going to ignore threats to my family. If someone wants to stab you, a smart, and peaceful person would still not go to embrace them.

I can pray for those hateful souls, but I will still not allow them to kill me.

 

[trickster]

Romney is not my choice, but i’d rather have him than Ron Paul. I don’t know, the thought of Ron paul becoming president scares me even more. I am more scared for the South Koreans especially because i have family there, if he pulls all the troops home, my family are doomed by the North Koreans . I do agree on some part that the useless wars need to be stopped and bring the troops home, but keep some of the troops in some of the countries that need us like the South Koreans because North and South are still at “war” they are practically pointing guns at eachother… I do pray though that the with the death of the N. Korean president that his son isn’t as crazy and since he is only in his late 20’s he may call it peace. One can only hope!.

Yeah, interesting. North Korea and Cuba for sure have new emerging leadership which automatically calls for a rethinking of American foreign policy and therefore military spending…the North Korean guy scares me even more than Romney though…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Hi everyone, it’s good to see people that are concerned about our nations security as we should be, but I think we reasonably have more than enough military power at the moment. We’re bankrupt, building a stronger military is not a good option. We maintain a military more suited for defense against the Eastern Bloc. I think it’s time to get out of the bases, return home, and be much more careful before intervening anywhere. With today’s technology we don’t even need the bases. Consider our submarine fleet, we’ll still have a reasonable defenses all over the world, and without as much cost.

Now it’s best to really think about the implications of possible military policy. What exactly would happen if we significantly scaled back our armed forces? I’d like to see some decent scenarios based on solid facts and historical precedent. For example, people are very worried about Iran. I mean understand, we hear reports that they talk about attacking the US and Israel. However, I’d like an example of a major nation led by anyone in the past 100 years, whose first strike was blatantly and I mean blatantly suicidal. It’s just a bit counter-intuitive to think Iran would really attack Israel or the US. However once you start a war, well that’s when crazy things start happening. Anyone who considers war with Iran should be an expert in the possible repercussions and then judge whether it’s worth starting a war over.

We have more than enough military power to keep ourselves secure. I also don’t think more military spending won’t really do much for the economy. We spend money on resources and goods that if ever needed will be used to destroy more resources and goods. War is the economy cannibalizing itself, something we don’t need at the moment.

Personally I’d be more concerned about our economy, economic disasters have a habit or ruining nations too you know.

BRAVO! CASCADIAN BRAVO! The other factor I think is the politics of fear and uncertainty. The politics of fear is big business and it sparks useless military spending, big government spending and all that …

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Here is the original question and my original reply:

Re: Romney NOW Scares the Hell Out of Me

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProVobis
I don’t know. He might think differently if Americans were actually willing to pay for the military out of their own pockets.

My answer was:
Well, if you are a tax paying American, then you already pay for the military out of your own pocket. I sure do.

---

What is the problem you have with my reply to ProVobis? All people paying the federal income taxes in the United States are paying the wages of the United States military. That’s how it works. Isn’t that what I said the first time? When I pay my federal income taxes, I am paying for the military out of my own pocket. Where does your country get the money to pay for the Canadian military?? Doesn’t it come from your own pockets??

Hi Peggy, no disagreement with you at all… I just lost the meaning as it didn’t appear in context of the older postings…The tax payer pays the billl in either country that is for sure…so we are in agreement…I had thought maybe the Americans had a second source to fund the military…so you have clarified that for me. It supports what I am saying about the American people have a right to have their government get control of spending. Conservatives want to stop spending in areas of human dignity which is really against our church’s teaching and more in the area of military in which an excessive military is a bad as a dictatorial military…and I think that is what worries me about how Romney is positinning himself…however, I think too thaT Romney is fighiting an uphill battle where the best GOP candidate is the most radically right one…whcih is very dangerous int he long run…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Complete and utter agreement.

I’d rather have a strong military. It serves as a good deterrent to anyone but the crazy.

Elle, having a strong military does not include directionless profiteering in creating war machinery…even McCain said so about some of the Pentagon’s spending. In these times of economic challenge, the military must be retained in a strong format…but that does not mean reviewing its expenditures, cutting down funding and being more strategic about the funding…

bruce

 

[trickster]

I’m not going to turn a cheek to those that would kill my countrymen on our soil. I’m not going to ignore threats to my family. If someone wants to stab you, a smart, and peaceful person would still not go to embrace them.

I can pray for those hateful souls, but I will still not allow them to kill me.

I’m not sure where Saint Patrick is going on that one…either…and “turning the cheek” certainly does not mean being a volunteer victim…as much as it is about forgiveness and moving forward…I would only hope that your statement is not limited to your countrymen but to a global humanity.

Bruce

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Look at the trend line in our military expenditures.

There are many different ways of measuring military spending.

Just between you and me, click on this and look at the chart.

airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2011/April%202011/0411chart.pdf

You need to examine the “two war” strategy … for example.

Keeping in mind that building back up after a shut down, takes years and years.

After President Jimmy Carter’s fiasco with “Desert One” in which a major operation failed with a lot of U.S. deaths and a lot of humiliation, someone asked me how we could fall so far so fast. What I pointed out was that the average enlistment was for only two or three years … so that we had to rebuild half or a third of our military every year … just on a normal on-going basis. And if we cut back, there would be nothing to start from, … so we would have to start over.

If you want a ship, it takes years. Which is why we have an on-going ship building program. When you need to send sailors into combat, you don’t have the time to build a fleet and train the sailors. You have to fight with what you have. When Donald Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense under President Bush, said that, he was pilloried by the news media.

President Obama terminated production of the F-22 Stealth Fighter. If we decide we need more of them … how long do you think it will take to either design a new stealth fighter or build a whole new production infrastructure to resume F-22 production.

The Air Force bureaucracy, aided by constant attacks by John McCain [yes, THAT John McCain], was unable to make up their minds on a new aerial refueling tanker plane. Meanwhile the mainstay refueler, the KC-135 dates back to the 1950’s. They are on their second or third re-engining … and they have wing cracks. And in a FEW YEARS, we MAY have a modified Boeing 767 ever so slowly coming off the lines. [By the way, Boeing worked with the Italians and the Japanese and has delivered a 767 tanker … but, they weren’t using our bureaucracy.]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker

You can rail against war profiteering. But you can’t define it.

You can argue all day about the 10-year development of the F-15 versus the competition that produced the YF-16 and the YF-17 and John Boyd. And the F-18 platform. [And look up all of that.] [And how may years did it take to design, test and build the F-22?]

Anyway, you want military people and military hardware and you want to protect Americans? It’s not cheap and it’s not easy.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I’m not really sure how the thread on Mitt turned into a discussion of U.S. Military policy except for the cuts Obama is making and the isolationism proposed by Paul. Mid had a decisive victory in NH. This says something important. He was able to squeak out a victory in a conservative state and earn a large victory (19% over the second place candidate) in a less conservative state. He has wide appeal. He is electable…most of the other candidates are not…in fact, I think Romney is the only current candidate capable of defeating Obama.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Romney said he would keep the military strong.

What does that mean, in the face of Obama’s cuts?

Seems to be a worthwhile discussion point.

Here is the index page for the Chart Page archives. Includes all military. Not just Air Force.

airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/ChartPageArchive.aspx

These Chart Pages were initiated back around 1989. So there should be a fairly thorough collection of tabulated and charted data by now.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Hi Peggy, no disagreement with you at all… I just lost the meaning as it didn’t appear in context of the older postings…The tax payer pays the billl in either country that is for sure…so we are in agreement…I had thought maybe the Americans had a second source to fund the military…so you have clarified that for me. It supports what I am saying about the American people have a right to have their government get control of spending. Conservatives want to stop spending in areas of human dignity which is really against our church’s teaching and more in the area of military in which an excessive military is a bad as a dictatorial military…and I think that is what worries me about how Romney is positinning himself…however, I think too thaT Romney is fighiting an uphill battle where the best GOP candidate is the most radically right one…whcih is very dangerous int he long run…

Bruce

The U.S. Constitution REQUIRES Congress to fund the military … and spells out those requirements and the authority in considerable detail.

These are included in a list of what are referred to as the “enumerated powers”. Look in Article I, Section 8.

And there are many discussions, many of which center around the issue of “subsidiarity”: [and subsidiarity is one of the teachings of Church social justice responsibilities]

renewamerica.com/columns/price/110605

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28847

The U.S. Constitution is THE charter document of the U.S. central government.

You also need to read the Tenth Amendment which clarifies that the primary powers and responsibilities for the United States lie with the States and with the individual people … not with the central national government:

tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/enumerated-powers/

Human dignity is a responsibility of ALL of us, everyone, but most especially the responsibility of our families, our churches, our local governments and of the state governments. Not the exclusive territory of the central government. The duties and responsibilities AND LIMITATIONS on the central government are spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[vz71]

Without meaning to upset any citizens of the US on here, I have to say that ALL the potential candidates for president of the USA - including the current incumbent - scare me witless for all sorts of different reasons, be they military tub-thumping, approval of abortion, etc.

Of those running, I believe Romney to be the only one with a spotty record concerning abortion.
You may want to read up on Ron Paul and Santorum. Those two have been solid pro-life.

 

[MillTownCath]

After seeing him take polar opposite positions on the abortion issue, I really can’t trust that he is a true pro-life candiate. This has become somewhat of a tradition in the Republican party. A previously pro-choice pro-gay rights candidate wants to enter into national politics but has to reverse his position on social issues before doing so. Mccain didn’t have the most pro-life record before his run for the POTUS either. I think if Romney wins the nomination, we can safely say there will be no true pro-life candidate running in 2012.

youtube.com/watch?v=cFMdK0TWtks

 

[Barbkw]

Since when have Mormons ever been pro-abortion? That alone, tells me that Romney has “issues” leading me to question his sincerity and his wisdom.

 

[IrishRush]

I think americas best bet for the future isn’t increasing the military but using it better. Bring everyone home and secure our airports/seaports/borders etc. The biggest threat right now I would say is the cartels spilling over the southern border. It would go a long way to show the world america wants to change from its idealistic holier than thou policies of the past by getting its nose out of everyone elses business and tending to itself. I mean russia wouldn’t be concerning us if we weren’t putting missile shields in poland and keeping such a strong presence in germany. The soldiers should be here at home, not out in the middle east fighting a losing war. That’s just my opinion though.

Spending more intelligently is definitely the right way to go with our military, as well as protecting our borders better. But bringing everyone home and not supporting our allies is isolationist and will only set us up to be hit by our terrorist enemies more easily. If we bury our heads in the sand we cannot possibly know what the people who want to do us harm are up to.
And to other responders in this thread that suggest more cooperation with the UN, I think that is also an area where we need to be very careful. The majority of the the countries with the UN are very anti-Israel in their rhetoric and that also segues into anti-America sentiments because we are allied with them. Until we see a UN that is living up to its original ideals, to fairly represent all nations, I think the proper course would be to start easing back in our association with them. The money put into the UN by the US is outrageously high, yet we are bashed constantly by the members. And this also touches on the idea that the US needs to focus on

getting its nose out of everyone elses business and tending to itself.

The US is bashed when it extends itself to help other countries while at the same time being told that we don’t do enough. As for the idea that

russia wouldn’t be concerning us if we weren’t putting missile shields in poland and keeping such a strong presence in germany

• my answer to that is Poland is also our ally and if we made the promise to help them protect themselves from being taken over by Russian or Soviet forces again, then we need to stand by that promise. Russia has nothing to worry about if they don’t do anything to Poland. All of the noise they make about that makes me wonder what their future plans for Poland are.
  Obama has turned our reputation into one of not supporting our allies by practically abandoning Israel and agreeing to no missile shields. He is making us look weak by trying to appease governments that make no secret of their hatred for us, and he is weakening our country by his mishandling of pretty much everything that crosses his path from international relations and foreign policy to the economy. He has an overt socialist agenda that he his slowly forcing onto our country, and his obvious disregard for the constitution of this country should be a huge red flag for every American citizen.

So, do you think my dislike and distrust of Obama shows? Just a little?
Sorry for the rant, but people really need to recognize what’s at stake with this election coming up. I too come from a family with a strong military background and am proud of what our country has stood for all of these years. It shames me to have someone like Obama in office, dragging all those good years through the mud. His wife may be proud of her country for the first time, but I’m feeling shame for my country for the first time.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

It would scare me much more if Ron Paul went on to win the election. He’s the one who would opt to have little or no US military influence around the world. Which one’s better when we have such enemies these days? And our current leader making things worse every time he lifts a finger?

And yet he has more support from the military than all the other candidates combined.

Might that be because the folke associated with the military understand the reality, while most other only understand what the media tells us about the threats to the U.S. and our military involvement overseas?

Pax,
OA

 

[Orleans_Attny]

…
Build the military back up and make it strong once again.

You can’t possibly think our military isn’t presently the most dominant force in the history of the world … right?

Pax,
OA

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t think there is anything wrong in having a strong military. He didn’t say I want to go out and start wars.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Saw an exit poll tonight from NH where 58% of the non Romney voters would be dissatisfied with him being the GOP nominee in a general election match-up vs President Obama. It will be interestng to see whether or not someone to the right of Romney mounts a campaign in such a scenario.

It appeared turnout was less than in 2008 as well.

mediaite.com/tv/bill-kristol-wary-of-romneys-low-turnout-in-nh-i-think-thats-worrisome-for-republicans/

Neither of which shows all that much enthusiasm among GOP voters for Romney the frontrunner nor for the field in a yr in which some say is poised to be a big GOP yr.

Fox News exit poll shows voters are satisfied 67-31% with the Republican field.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Romney has a checkered record before he became pro life, he had a pro life conversion, just like Ronald Reagon. He had a consistent pro life record as governor. Pro life advocates in Massachusetts have said Romney is sufficiently pro life. He has earned a number of endorsements from pro life advocates who served as ambassadors for the Vatican.

NARAL president and the NARAL pro abortion group have attacked Romney many times on his pro life stances and record.

On the issue of abortion, the pro abortion group EMILY’S List have awarded Romney the worst marks on the issue of abortion out of all the candidates:

emilyslist.org/scorecard

Romney’s judicial team is made up of pro life Conservatives:

lifenews.com/2011/08/05/romney-picks-pro-life-conservatives-as-top-judicial-advisors/

 

[Carlan]

They are Politicians, and lets not kid our selves, many of them will say and do anything to get themselves elected. I take them ,for the most part, with a grain of salt.
Peace, Carlan