Romney tells vets dangerous world demands powerful military

[Pork_Roll]

“He believes in American exceptionalism,” McCain said. “He believes the 21st Century will also be an American century.”

American exceptionalism is a political philosophy that assigns a unique and unprecedented place to the United States as the leading global proponent and exemplar of liberty, freedom and equality around the world.

This sounds exactly like The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)–an American think tank co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.

The PNAC’s stated goal was “to promote American global leadership.”[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that “American leadership is both good for America and good for the world” The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration’s development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.

Using fear to justify weapons development may not lead to any real peace according to the church. This quote is from the papal encyclical (John XXIII) Pacem in Terris:

Everyone must sincerely co-operate in the effort to banish fear and the anxious expectation of war from men’s minds. But this requires that the fundamental principles upon which peace is based in today’s world be replaced by an altogether different one, namely, the realization that true and lasting peace among nations cannot consist in the possession of an equal supply of armaments but only in mutual trust. And We are confident that this can be achieved, for it is a thing which not only is dictated by common sense, but is in itself most desirable and most fruitful of good.

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

I will say two things about this:

1. A strong, well-trained military is always a good and necessary thing, and it’s something we excel at, BUT…
2. We, as a nation, really need to jettison this stupid “us vs them”, “the world is big and dangerous” attitude, as it really doesn’t help while also making us unnaturally suspicious of everything.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

We, as a nation, really need to jettison this stupid “us vs them”, “the world is big and dangerous” attitude, as it really doesn’t help while also making us unnaturally suspicious of everything.

I agree. What war is even now being planned to give us another opportunity to “kick butt and take names” as we spread our values throughout the planet?

Too, who will pay for this bigger and tougher Armed Forces? Haven’t we spent enough in American coin and blood in Iraq and Afghanistan fostering “liberty, freedom and equality around the world,” and BTW how successful have our efforts been?

 

[Pork_Roll]

What worries me the most is that this kind of rhetoric lead to GWB invasion of Iraq which was condemned by two popes. The idea being that democracies promote stability and that they will not war with on another. These preemptive wars are justified with the idea that the end justifies the means.

I have a hard time believing that christians in Syria will fair better under a “democracy” like in Egypt and Iraq. Obviously, religious freedom is secondary to economic stability in their minds.

 

[Michael_C]

If it is so dangerous then he should fully support the second amendment. He should also dump wasteful weapons and programs like the F-22 piece of junk that makes all the pilots sick and costs 422 million a pop. What a waste of money. Spend it on training or something useful.

 

[curlycool89]

Ah, American exceptionalism. AKA the view that America has a serious Messianic complex, which is not a new thing (Manifest Destiny was an early indicator of that).

 

[7_Sorrows]

I will say two things about this:

1. A strong, well-trained military is always a good and necessary thing, and it’s something we excel at, BUT…
2. We, as a nation, really need to jettison this stupid “us vs them”, “the world is big and dangerous” attitude, as it really doesn’t help while also making us unnaturally suspicious of everything.

i definitely agree with your first point. we need a strong and well-trained military.
i also believe that we need to support our veterans while in service and after.

the world has always been dangerous throughout history and will no doubt continue to be.
so we need to be prepared and ready to face whatever threat there might be.

as for your point 2, there are legitimate concerns in our world right now that could turn into threats so, again, we need to be prepared. i also don’t like the us vs. them attitude when it is blown out of proportion. we shouldn’t hide our heads in the sand either.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I will say two things about this:

1. A strong, well-trained military is always a good and necessary thing, and it’s something we excel at, BUT…
2. We, as a nation, really need to jettison this stupid “us vs them”, “the world is big and dangerous” attitude, as it really doesn’t help while also making us unnaturally suspicious of everything.

I agree with 1, but as long as strong doesn’t equal lots of wasteful military spending.

 

[Alan55]

It’s very easy to promise great things – a great economy, a great military, etc. – when you don’t have to go into detail about how you’re going to pay for it. Mitt apparently expects to spend as much or more than Obama on the military. I hope he can conjure up a strong economic recovery to pay for it. He hasn’t convinced me that he has a reasonable plan for improving the economy. We’ve heard his pitch before and recent decades have proven that it doesn’t work.

 

[7_Sorrows]

It’s very easy to promise great things – a great economy, a great military, etc. – when you don’t have to go into detail about how you’re going to pay for it. Mitt apparently expects to spend as much or more than Obama on the military. I hope he can conjure up a strong economic recovery to pay for it. He hasn’t convinced me that he has a reasonable plan for improving the economy. We’ve heard his pitch before and recent decades have proven that it doesn’t work.

what’s his pitch???

 

[Holly3278]

If the United States didn’t try to act like the world’s police force all the time, we wouldn’t need such a powerful military. I don’t think our military needs to be all that strong. Sure it needs to be strong enough to defend ourselves if we are attacked but as it is, it is more than strong enough for that.

 

[7_Sorrows]

If the United States didn’t try to act like the world’s police force all the time, we wouldn’t need such a powerful military. I don’t think our military needs to be all that strong. Sure it needs to be strong enough to defend ourselves if we are attacked but as it is, it is more than strong enough for that.

there are a lot of “bullies” in the world we live in that want to “pick” on countries weaker than they are. it is natural that they want a strong country like the u.s. to come to their aid. there are a lot of responsibilities that come along with being the united states of america and helping others is one of them. there are plenty of countries that would like to see us brought down also and for that reason, we need a strong military and need to keep up with modern weaponry.

 

[SamH]

Ah, American exceptionalism. AKA the view that America has a serious Messianic complex, which is not a new thing (Manifest Destiny was an early indicator of that).

True. We see what happens when the president has a Messianic complex.

 

[ProVobis]

what Ron Paul says.

 

[PatrickSebast]

7 Sorrows;9363718**:

there are a lot of “bullies” in the world we live in that want to “pick” on countries weaker than they are.

it is natural that they want a strong country like the u.s. to come to their aid. there are a lot of responsibilities that come along with being the united states of america and helping others is one of them. there are plenty of countries that would like to see us brought down also and for that reason, we need a strong military and need to keep up with modern weaponry.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a good definition of a “bully” country that could not also be applied to the US at this moment. We kill innocent people, force small governments like Afganistan’s to comply to occupation or get destroyed, impose sanctions on countries that want to develop powerful weapons despite developing the same weapons ourselves. Sure we have excuses for all of it, but to an outsider the US likely doesn’t look much better than a lot of other “bullies” look to us.

 

[GratefulFred]

If we believe that there is a God and that some of His angels chose to not follow Him and are fighting against God by trying to get humans to commit evil in every way possible, and if we read history and conclude that evil men form strong governments and attempt to subjugate others for their personal benefit, then Mr. Romney is correct in saying the world is a dangerous place and thus we do need a strong military.

But that is not whole story.

The most important decision is knowing when and when not to use the military. It is so tempting to use it too quickly. It is so easy to ignore the Principles of a Just War set down in writing by St Augustine some 1,500 years ago.

America cannot police the entire world. In fact, we do not even try it. We have always claimed some reasonable connection to ‘national security.’ Some how, life in America would be seriously worse off if we did not intervene militarily. Of course “serioulsy worse off” is debatable. Presidents have to make their case. Congress has to vote the money, one way or another.

War is always a test of Wills.

General Washington, Presidents Lincoln and FDR had serious problems getting Congress to build and equip a good military mainly because enough powerful people would not support fighting. Well meaning or not, they lacked the Will to Win. Lincoln even had a few generals who would not fight. Presidents Johnson and G.W. Bush certainly had their detractors that made winning impossible.

In each case way too many in the military were killed or left damaged physically and or mentally for life.

We do need a strong military. But more than that, we need strong Presidents and a strong Congress that know when and when not to send our troops into harms way. Once sent, our troops, America, and the innocent who get caught up in war deserve the full support of Congress, the Media, and the American public.

Once the shooting starts, the proper debate is HOW TO WIN, not how soon can we quit.

 

[meltzerboy]

This sounds exactly like The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)–an American think tank co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Using fear to justify weapons development may not lead to any real peace according to the church. This quote is from the papal encyclical (John XXIII) Pacem in Terris:

This philosophy also sounds like George W. Bush’s new world order and Reagan’s initial belief that the Soviet Union is an evil empire. It is backward thinking. Sure, we must be strong militarily, but not for the purpose of world domination. Romney’s foreign policy ideas are even more frightening than his domestic ones.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

If the United States didn’t try to act like the world’s police force all the time, we wouldn’t need such a powerful military. I don’t think our military needs to be all that strong. Sure it needs to be strong enough to defend ourselves if we are attacked but as it is, it is more than strong enough for that.

 

[gnjsdad]

Romney’s foreign policy ideas are even more frightening than his domestic ones.

I agree. It’s number one on my list of reasons not to vote in November.

 

[LisaA]

If we believe that there is a God and that some of His angels chose to not follow Him and are fighting against God by trying to get humans to commit evil in every way possible, and if we read history and conclude that evil men form strong governments and attempt to subjugate others for their personal benefit, then Mr. Romney is correct in saying the world is a dangerous place and thus we do need a strong military.

But that is not whole story.

The most important decision is knowing when and when not to use the military. It is so tempting to use it too quickly. It is so easy to ignore the Principles of a Just War set down in writing by St Augustine some 1,500 years ago.

America cannot police the entire world. In fact, we do not even try it. We have always claimed some reasonable connection to ‘national security.’ Some how, life in America would be seriously worse off if we did not intervene militarily. Of course “serioulsy worse off” is debatable. Presidents have to make their case. Congress has to vote the money, one way or another.

War is always a test of Wills.

General Washington, Presidents Lincoln and FDR had serious problems getting Congress to build and equip a good military mainly because enough powerful people would not support fighting. Well meaning or not, they lacked the Will to Win. Lincoln even had a few generals who would not fight. Presidents Johnson and G.W. Bush certainly had their detractors that made winning impossible.

In each case way too many in the military were killed or left damaged physically and or mentally for life.

We do need a strong military. But more than that, we need strong Presidents and a strong Congress that know when and when not to send our troops into harms way. Once sent, our troops, America, and the innocent who get caught up in war deserve the full support of Congress, the Media, and the American public.

Once the shooting starts, the proper debate is HOW TO WIN, not how soon can we quit.

Wow finally some rational thought in this thread. Peace through strength is more than a bumper sticker. Weakness invites aggression. Isolationism invites meddlesome countries to great adventures. Not that I am for being the Cosmic Cop to the world. But I do want to see our military well prepared, well paid and repaid for their service with proper medical care and transition assistance.

I think Romney’s comments are in contrast to proposed massive cuts in military spending rather than a plan to a modern day Crusade. Romney is a businessman and he has a businessman’s approach. Nothing he’s said has indicated a desire for adventure or aggression.

Lisa