Republican Primary

[trickster]

I am SO not a fan of Romney’s but I would rather have a president willing to keep our military strong than one who will cut funding to it while he is also giving missile information to former, and potential future, enemies as Obama wants to do. As much as I would like to see peace throughout the world, the sad reality is that we have too many enemies, Iran being one of our worst, that want to see us wiped out. If we don’t maintain our dominance / strength, we will be dominated.
At this point in international politics, reality must be acknowledged. What we wish for, and what we have, are two very different things right now.

Irish Rush…at what cost do you see the US maintaining its dominance? It spends far more per capita GDP (or whatever that economic term is)…and would not cutting spending in parts of the military…even Cain said some of what the Pentagon was doing was economically ridiculous, not effective and costing your tax base too much money…why not cut spending in areas that don’t work adn increas or maintain it in areas of effectiveness like technology…if that what was Romney was talking about…well then that’s fair…but at least the way I heard him (and this is my own percpetion) was that he was opening the gate to military profiteering again…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

A strong military is a must.

If we have a weak military, we will be in even worse shape than we are now.

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

But Catholic90 in saying what you are saying would you also add that you build the military up in a cost effective way and account for expenditures in that budget? Strategic expenditures to build up a technological and/or other advantageous position is indeed building up the military…I think war profiteering is about those companies who are soaking millions of dollars out of the government without results…war companies are in fact the coutnreis biggest welfare recipients, next to Wall Street I guess… Ok on a roll now…do you favour war profittering or do you favour a strong military, do you separte the two or see them as one?

Bruce

 

[trickster]

As a Canadian, I worry as much about the politics in your country as I do in mine. There is nothing more important to the security to Canada’s freedoms then a strong, healthy United States. Your foreign policy has been right far more then it has been wrong and your brave men and women in your armed forces deserve the utmost respect and appreciation for the sacrifices they have made for lasting peace in the western world.

To the OP… there is nothing immoral with having a strong military. That’s equivalent to saying that the biggest kid on the playground is inherently a bully just because he is bigger then everybody else. The vatican has enormous political and social clout around the world and what do they do with it?.. They help make the world a better place.

And I just want to say this: God bless America.

Hi Midnight, I’m Canadian too and I agree with you on how the US and our country are tied at the hips! What I was getting at was the implications of Romney’s speeches that he will build a strong military that had the tone of building a strong military machine and all the war profitting that comes from that…it is right and just to defend yourself, we’re Canadians we know that…and we hold our part very well without the same pageant and ceremony (thats just Canadian)…but equally remember the US has equally valued Canada in many ways…so our two countreis are great partners…and since we are only 1/10th of theri population and tax base, our country has been strategic in investing in a Canadian military that specializes in things…when I was in Texas, I heard that compliment many times from the soldiers I met at El Paso’s Ft. Hood…so just a thought…so yeah…I think I might of read too much into Romney’s speech tonight…but it has the potential of being scary …

Bruce

 

[trickster]

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

Peggy, how does that work? Does not military spending come from the American tax base? Or how does the US pay for its military? I pay taxes in two countries and I am happy to do that…ahh…just hit me … if I pay taxes in “texas” then I have a right to complain right?

Bruce

 

[trickster]

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)

How is peace through strength “satanic”? Christ was not only about turning the other cheek, he was also about standing for the global human condition through his crucifixion and he stood up to religious greed when he cleared the temple? So not following you here?

cheerz

bruce

 

[trickster]

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.

I can agree with this point a bit easier. You know I agree that it is a balance…my own sense as a Canadian is why not allow the US to withdraw from some of its international obligations and work with the rest of the international community to address global problem areas (Canada would and always had done its share) in order to allow the US to restore itself? How can the US balance its resources better? How can it invest in military spending more effectively and cost wise? thoughts?

Bruce

 

[Lily0fthevalley]

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!.

 

[Neildown]

@ Trickster: We need to find some angry, blogger dudes to come on here and slow you down a bit - you’re posting faster [and more coherently-so] than I’ve seen anyone on this site thus far, lol!

 

[Birdpreacher]

You know having a President who would only go to war if Congress voted on it might be a good thing for America.

ALso: We are fighting terrorists: all of the star wars defense systems and super high tech jets in the world wont do a lick against a homemade IED. Besides if WW3 were to actually go down it would be over before we knew it since there are enough nukes to blow up the earth boogity boogity times over.

Maybe forcing the military to spend money a bit more cautiously isnt a bad idea as we are up to our grandkid’s eyeballs in debt.

 

[Khalid]

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?

At least it’s looking like more people are coming around to a more reasonable view of Ron Paul, viz. he’s not a good candidate (his plans for the military, for social services, and for finances would all be disastrous if he could implement them), but he inspires fanaticism amongst his devotees that makes Obama’s “Change” campaign look like intramural sports compared to club football. I know, as I was a Ron Paul fan for several years when I was a Muslim, before I became a bit more wise about politics and learned a bit of basic economics and international relations. He seems to have a double-headed ostrich approach to many issues.

At the least, I do admire him for his pro-life views, and, as a poster said, “speaking from the heart and conviction”, and not flip-flopping his positions based on the political exigencies of the moment, as all other politicians seem to do. We need more politicians with his kind of honesty and principle, even if not with his views.

With the candidate field as it is, I will likely abstain from voting in the general election. If I can vote in the primaries, I’ll vote against Paul. My money is on Obama winning again as Ron Paul chooses to run as a third-party candidate (as he always has in the past) when he doesn’t receive the Republican nomination, and splitting the conservative vote by taking a few percent, while the liberal vote is not split: something like 48% Obama, 47% Romney, and 5% Paul.

 

[ishii]

Did you hear Mitt Romney’s New Hampshire speech after winning…he said he will build a military that the world will not question…hence more military spending…and building up the American obsession with world military power…that is so sad…where is the Catholic voice against that. Thoughts?

Sure, here are my thoughts: If Romney means that he will build a military such that our enemies will not question our strength and resolve then I agree with him. Remember, it is weakness that usually invites enemies to push their luch and start wars. Let the world know we aren’t weak, and are not afraid to defend our interests. Peace through strength. It was the foreign policy of Reagan and it worked. I hope that is what Romney is emulating.

Ishii

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I honestly don’t know how Ron Paul could realize an idealistic libertarian state in our world, but what I was referring to was military profiteering…US military influence around the world is both a blessing and a curse, one that the US has adopted for itself after WWII and perhaps its time to reassess given the Soviet Union BUT also given China…perhaps it would be easier on America to partner more with other countries in NATO or UN Operations with respect to problem spots…so without commenting upon the internal politics of your country, I can be worried about a president who has just open the door to building a greater military machine…when a strategic military is more useful…thoughts…?

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[CMatt25]

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.

 

[trickster]

Sure, here are my thoughts: If Romney means that he will build a military such that our enemies will not question our strength and resolve then I agree with him. Remember, it is weakness that usually invites enemies to push their luch and start wars. Let the world know we aren’t weak, and are not afraid to defend our interests. Peace through strength. It was the foreign policy of Reagan and it worked. I hope that is what Romney is emulating.

Ishii

I agree…hope the media flushes that out…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

At least it’s looking like more people are coming around to a more reasonable view of Ron Paul, viz. he’s not a good candidate (his plans for the military, for social services, and for finances would all be disastrous if he could implement them), but he inspires fanaticism amongst his devotees that makes Obama’s “Change” campaign look like intramural sports compared to club football. I know, as I was a Ron Paul fan for several years when I was a Muslim, before I became a bit more wise about politics and learned a bit of basic economics and international relations. He seems to have a double-headed ostrich approach to many issues.

At the least, I do admire him for his pro-life views, and, as a poster said, “speaking from the heart and conviction”, and not flip-flopping his positions based on the political exigencies of the moment, as all other politicians seem to do. We need more politicians with his kind of honesty and principle, even if not with his views.

With the candidate field as it is, I will likely abstain from voting in the general election. If I can vote in the primaries, I’ll vote against Paul. My money is on Obama winning again as Ron Paul chooses to run as a third-party candidate (as he always has in the past) when he doesn’t receive the Republican nomination, and splitting the conservative vote by taking a few percent, while the liberal vote is not split: something like 48% Obama, 47% Romney, and 5% Paul.

Yeah I read it pretty much the same way…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

You know having a President who would only go to war if Congress voted on it might be a good thing for America.

ALso: We are fighting terrorists: all of the star wars defense systems and super high tech jets in the world wont do a lick against a homemade IED. Besides if WW3 were to actually go down it would be over before we knew it since there are enough nukes to blow up the earth boogity boogity times over.

Maybe forcing the military to spend money a bit more cautiously isnt a bad idea as we are up to our grandkid’s eyeballs in debt.

Terrorists, your right…that went right past my head…investment in skill development and strategic development that are guerella (as learned in Vietnam) and /or terrorist is also a good investment in enhancing military capacity to defend america as well as her interests around the world…good point…as long as it doesn’t lead to an endless hole of “investment”…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

@ Trickster: We need to find some angry, blogger dudes to come on here and slow you down a bit - you’re posting faster [and more coherently-so] than I’ve seen anyone on this site thus far, lol!

Thank you, yes was on a bit of a roll…but night time has a way of slowing one down too… Thank you for the compliment…

Bruce

 

[Cascadian]

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.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Peggy, how does that work? Does not military spending come from the American tax base? Or how does the US pay for its military? I pay taxes in two countries and I am happy to do that…ahh…just hit me … if I pay taxes in “texas” then I have a right to complain right?

Bruce

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??

 

[Elle_C]

Christ was not passive. Peace through strength, this is much better than letting Iran drop a bomb and nuke Israel and America.

What scares me much more is Obama funding planned parenthood for unborn babies die, homosexuality being pushed as the norm, record poverty levels and food stamp usage by the administration.

Complete and utter agreement.

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