Romney tells vets dangerous world demands powerful military

[LisaA]

I just listed for you the information I would need to answer your question. It makes no sense to ask such a question in a vacuum because there are an infinite number of other possibilities (assassination, overthrow or a bolt of lightning from the sky, come to mind) that could have removed Saddam and his ilk from office, without waging an unjustified war.

Look you can’t use “20 20 hindsight” to object to the Iraq War and simultaneously claim that had it not occurred we would still have been rid of Saddam Hussein through lightening bolts or an Arab Spring (which isn’t exactly working out is it?).

What the anti Iraq war folks seem to conveniently forget is that Bill Clinton said regime change was necessary and the vast majority, I think all but one or two in Congress voted for the war (before they were against it!). Further we went to war with (flawed) information that Saddam had WMD. This information too was accepted by not only the Democrats but also other world leaders. So why do you and other keep beating this dead horse?

Yes we should learn from the experience and I suggest few of you had as close contact with our service members during the Iraq War as I did. So I got first hand views of what was happening over there and the horrible impact on our young troops. But as Ridgrunner said, would you really unring the bell and put Saddam and his sons back in power? Given what we knew at the time, it was the decision accepted at all levels of government.

But back to the thread. What does any of this have to do with the Great Leap to the conclusion that Romney is some kind of undetected war monger, simply because he believes that this is a dangerous world and we should maintain a strong military. From out here in the cheap seats, I think he’s absolutely right.

Lisa

 

[7_Sorrows]

try telling the people in syria that we are not living in a dangerous world or the people of nigeria who have been experiencing acts of terrorism.

 

[seekerz]

Look you can’t use “20 20 hindsight” to object to the Iraq War and simultaneously claim that had it not occurred we would still have been rid of Saddam Hussein through lightening bolts or an Arab Spring (which isn’t exactly working out is it?).

What the anti Iraq war folks seem to conveniently forget is that Bill Clinton said regime change was necessary and the vast majority, I think all but one or two in Congress voted for the war (before they were against it!). Further we went to war with (flawed) information that Saddam had WMD. This information too was accepted by not only the Democrats but also other world leaders. So why do you and other keep beating this dead horse?

Yes we should learn from the experience and I suggest few of you had as close contact with our service members during the Iraq War as I did. So I got first hand views of what was happening over there and the horrible impact on our young troops. But as Ridgrunner said, would you really unring the bell and put Saddam and his sons back in power? Given what we knew at the time, it was the decision accepted at all levels of government.

But back to the thread. What does any of this have to do with the Great Leap to the conclusion that Romney is some kind of undetected war monger, simply because he believes that this is a dangerous world and we should maintain a strong military. From out here in the cheap seats, I think he’s absolutely right.

Lisa

See my post above. All the Iraq war achieved for America was more enemies, thousands of lives laid down in the line of duty and a lighter public purse. Cuba needs regime change too, so does South Korea, so do a lot of places. That’s why they have populations with hands, feet and hearts. We can legitimately support regime change - it is not our place to impose it. This viewpoint does not in any way necessitate that despots be allowed to continue ruling indefinitely.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

well, i am definitely glad that we got involved in the war against germany and japan.
i suppose it was good that we got involved in the conflict in korea because at least the south koreans can live in a democracy. i wish that vietnam could have had a better ending for the vietnamese.
you are right, 9/11 was not an attack out of the blue. there had been acts of terrorism by these groups since the 1970’s throughout the world. the people who attacked us on 9/11 are against us because we side with israel. they want israel destroyed.
why don’t you attack hollywood for all the money thrown away on the ridiculous movies they make every year and the worthless television shows that they produce? think of all the billions of dollars that go to pay writers, directors, screenwriters, actors, etc. for movies and television shows that really have no rewarding value. this is another reason THEY hate us. because of the promiscuous culture we promote in our music, tv and cinema. with that i can agree with them.
another point, what about all of the money given away each year for food stamps, welfare, disability, housing? do you ever wonder how much of that is given away fraudulently?
so don’t single out the military as the bad guy. yes, these past 2 wars have cost money.
i wish 9/11 had never happened. i wish they had never brought their acts of terrorism to our soil and comandeer the planes and do what they did that terrible day. i am sorry for alll the people who lost their lives that day and their families. would you rather be speaking arabic someday or chinese or russian?

I agree with the other wastes found in our country but I was responding specifically to the charge that america needs a big military. Its a monster that has grown infinitely beyond its mean and yet what do we have to show for it? It’s not even number 1 lol Not saying our military is a pushover, far from it. But the fact we pay money to station soldiers in hundreds of countries across the world, most of the countries most of us probably never even heard of. And all the money that they wasted on that super battleship thing that was “unsinkable” or whatever arrogant word was used. Months later china had a missile that theoretically would sink it from miles and miles and miles away on land. It’s those kinds of multi billion “pet” projects that the american people can not afford and that the world does not need.

Of course we needed to be involved in world war 2 but I refuse to acknowledge the “heroics” of the american governments timely advance into war. Keep in mind I’m not speaking of the soldiers who fought as their actions speak for themselves, the good and the bad. But the fact that america sat by neutral dishing out money and supplies while europe was getting wrecked. And it wasn’t until japan attacked that america got involved. Then we have a powerful fresh military moving in to attack a nation that was tired for several years of war spread out across several fronts. America didn’t save the day. They just came in and kicked a dog while it was down. Had Japan not attacked and Hitler finished his conquest of western europe Lord knows how different this world would have been. America wouldn’t have stood a chance against Germany then. (But obviously didn’t happen that way so speculation is pretty pointless).

And lastly, I wouldn’t mind learning russian to be honest. It’s a beautiful language with a very emotional accent. As opposed to our redneckish southern "drawl’ that makes us look …well special.

 

[LisaA]

See my post above. All the Iraq war achieved for America was more enemies, thousands of lives laid down in the line of duty and a lighter public purse. Cuba needs regime change too, so does South Korea, so do a lot of places. That’s why they have populations with hands, feet and hearts. We can legitimately support regime change - it is not our place to impose it. This viewpoint does not in any way necessitate that despots be allowed to continue ruling indefinitely.

Regime change was not the reason we went to Iraq. It was because of WMD. That Clinton and others suggested regime change simply points out this was an accepted idea on both sides of the aisle. Had there not been concerns about the WMDs we would not have invaded Iraq would we? As you said there are many countries where we might think regime change is needed. OTOH unless we have security concerns (for ourselves or our allies) we don’t just invade countries willy nilly.

I’m not sure why you think we have more enemies due to Iraq. Any evidence or just another assumption because you are obviously a critic of the Iraq War?

But hey while we’re trying to rewrite history, there is actually a discussion regarding the next President of the United States. Again anything you object to with regard to the statement that a) the world is a dangerous place and b) America needs a strong military?

I am in full 100% agreement with Mr Romney.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

Regime change was not the reason we went to Iraq. It was because of WMD. That Clinton and others suggested regime change simply points out this was an accepted idea on both sides of the aisle. Had there not been concerns about the WMDs we would not have invaded Iraq would we? As you said there are many countries where we might think regime change is needed. OTOH unless we have security concerns (for ourselves or our allies) we don’t just invade countries willy nilly.

I’m not sure why you think we have more enemies due to Iraq. Any evidence or just another assumption because you are obviously a critic of the Iraq War?

But hey while we’re trying to rewrite history, there is actually a discussion regarding the next President of the United States. Again anything you object to with regard to the statement that a) the world is a dangerous place and b) America needs a strong military?

I am in full 100% agreement with Mr Romney.

Lisa

I don’t see anything wrong, or new for that matter, in what Romney said. I really don’t even see the need to say it since we already have a strong military, but he has a right to free speech just like any of us. My concern is that in making it an issue, he is starting to sound like the people who support playing cowboy all over the world just because we can…

As for Iraq, there was a supposed fear of WMDs, which as we all know, never materialized. The less said the better. I tend to not support pre-emptive strikes simply because these can be manipulated on the flimsiest of ‘evidence’ to suit the ideology of the day - as happened in Iraq.

The world has always been a dangerous place. A strong military is needed to protect the populace from real dangers - not imagined or manufactured or after-the-fact ones.

 

[TEPO]

In my opinion, we should have never invaded Iraq like we did. We shouldnt be concerned with any Arab affairs at all -it’s their problems…

When Arabs start building nukes, the UN should be responsible for investigating it… That’s what they’re here for. When nations don’t comply, we just bomb their suspected nuke sites and carry on.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How easily you dismiss the Arab Spring (minus Egypt of course). Why does it have to be war or Saddam-rule ? That’s a false association. Why couldn’t it be no war - no Saddam-rule. Assassination did eventually bring down the mastermind of 911 after years of failure, so why was an expensive war necessary to bring down a despot who had nothing to do with 911? You will admit that there is a world of difference between limited support to an Arab Spring uprising (as in Libya) and storming into a country commando-style to wage a decade-long war, no?

Your question assumes that there was no alternative to remove Saddam. My assertion is that there were options. I would turn back the clock, prevent the war and let Iraqis’ frustrations over sanctions boil over into their very own Arab Spring. What’s the worst that could have happened, that the international community would not unite to intervene and that a prolonged civil war would break out…wait, haven’t we seen that movie already?

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

You’re saying that you would have left Saddam in power, and that you would rely on hope that somehow the “international community” would shut down his rape rooms and keep him from gassing Kurds and burying people alive, when it never even attempted to do it before. And you would rely on some “Arab spring” to bring him down someday or other, when there are dictators all over the Arab world who are still in power. 'Nuff said. If you had your way, he would still be there after having killed a million people.

“Limited support” to the rebels in Libya? When you bomb another country, that’s properly called “war”. Your only distinction here is the monetary cost. Yes, the war on Libya was less expensive. But it was still a war, and it was undertaken without any congressional approval whatever. The Iraq and Af/Pak wars did have congressional approval.

 

[seekerz]

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

You’re saying that you would have left Saddam in power, and that you would rely on hope that somehow the “international community” would shut down his rape rooms and keep him from gassing Kurds and burying people alive, when it never even attempted to do it before. And you would rely on some “Arab spring” to bring him down someday or other, when there are dictators all over the Arab world who are still in power. 'Nuff said. If you had your way, he would still be there after having killed a million people.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Who needs wishes and horses when we have drones, Navy Seals and the ability carry out targeted airstrikes?

 

[SamH]

“Limited support” to the rebels in Libya? When you bomb another country, that’s properly called “war”. Your only distinction here is the monetary cost. Yes, the war on Libya was less expensive. But it was still a war, and it was undertaken without any congressional approval whatever. The Iraq and Af/Pak wars did have congressional approval.

And we’ve also seen how effective such actions are. Now that Libya has deposed their leader what has changed?

In the months after Colonel Qaddafi’s death, Libyans were counting on the ballot box to end four decades of rule by brute force. But the militias formed to fight Colonel Qaddafi, and many others that sprang up after the fact, have thwarted the consolidation of a new central authority and become a menace to security, trading deadly gunfire in the streets of the capital, detaining and torturing suspected Qaddafi loyalists, and even kidnapping two members of the ruling Transitional National Council for two days.

The militia leaders who have turned post-Qaddafi Libya into a patchwork of semiautonomous fiefs are now plunging into politics, raising fears that their armed brigades could undermine elections intended to lay the foundation of a new democracy.

topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html

 

[seekerz]

And we’ve also seen how effective such actions are. Now that Libya has deposed their leader what has changed?

That’s their problem to sort out. I know of very few stable, democratic countries that did not first endure painful and often, prolonged, birthing process. How is the situation in Libya worse than that in post-invasion Iraq?

 

[Ridgerunner]

And we’ve also seen how effective such actions are. Now that Libya has deposed their leader what has changed?

topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html

I don’t know that anything will have changed on a fundamental basis. Likely at some point some new dictator or cabal will come to the fore. Might not be as bizarre as Khaddafi (sp?) but probably will be just as brutal. Might or might not play nice with the west for awhile.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

we have a lot of enemies in spite of all the good that we do around the world.

Even our friends don’t all like what “good” we think we’re doing.

our enemies would like to see nothing more than our country destroyed.

Of course. That’s why they’re our enemies.

it sounds like it wouldn’t make any difference to you rich.

What doesn’t make any difference to me?

 

[epan]

I’d love to hear those “convincing arguments” regarding the recession since the major reason cited by both sides was the real estate bubble bursting. The Treasury was NOT drained by the Iraq/Afghanistan wars but please tell me how you can conclude that productivity was ‘lost’ due to troops being deployed?

Further you mistake “military production” for cost of defense. Yes the weapons are expensive but the budget contains far more for compensation, benefits etc for service members than the expense of a fighter jet. Further tell those who work in plants that do produce military equipment that their jobs were low value to the economy. Let’s see a nice union job with Boeing vs Starbucks…yes that service economy is a winner!

The cost of the military budget vis a vis the world total or the EU is totally irrelevant. I don’t think we base our military preparedness on a dollar figure to put us in line with the E.U.

Look I have no problem with a strong line by line review of the defense budget. But throwing out a bunch of irrelevant data doesn’t address the issue. Romney has made a true statement and since defense of the nation is the number one job of the President I am happy he is focused on this versus worthless loans to green energy companies or forcing Americans to buy others’ birth control.

Lisa

It was at a lecture on the topic at Stanford by an economist. He tried to quantify the loss to our economy. War spending is very wasteful. I personally observed incredible wastefulness and fraud in Iraq. But the big number which surprised me in the lecture, was the loss of productivity in the economy due to the number of reservists which were called up, and the length of time they were deployed.

His claim was not that the war caused the collapse, but that it was a contributing factor. Not only did it lower our GDP and tax receipts, it simultaneously put a lot of pressure on the credit markets which collapsed. This war was paid for with deficit spending. Additional consumer debt was used by deployed families. All of this contributed to the collapse.

I would be more receptive to statements like Romney’s, if they were coupled with a recognition that we do need a long term energy plan to get reduce our reliance on imported energy. I have not heard a plan from him, nor from his opponent. Consider that the US had historically paid $7 in defense spending in the M.E. for every BBL or oil exported from the region (not counting the $1T+ for the Iraq war). EVERY barrel. So, it does matter what the EU pays on defense. They should be paying their share of the oil bill. It is important to do something about the fact that we pay the military bill to protect China’s imported oil. I disagree with you that the ratio of military spending between countries relative to GDP is irrelevant. In addition to saying that he wants to spend a lot of money on arms, I would like to hear him say that he also wants to get others to pay their way, so we don’t have to.

Finally, I believe that OIF was an optional war. It did little to defend the US or our interests. It is a good thing that Hussein was deposed. No doubt there. But was it worth it? The money spent exceeded the economic bailout. I would rather have seen that money spent for a better purpose, or not spent at all. Many lives were lost, and people wounded. There was really no excuse for the recklessness in planning, and the haste with which we engaged in that war. We will be paying the blowback costs for at least a generation, maybe two. Not only did we damage our own economy, and destroy lives and property, the end result was abysmal. It is dangerous to make such statements without looking through the lens of history. I hope that I am incorrect in my assessment, and enough good comes of the reconstruction of Iraq to have made it worth the lives and money which I believe were squandered.

 

[7_Sorrows]

the U.S. has no official spoken language? you are kidding right? :banghead:

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

the U.S. has no official spoken language? you are kidding right? :banghead:

English is the de facto national language of the United States, with 82% of the population claiming it as a mother tongue, and some 96% claiming to speak it “well” or “very well.” However, no official language exists at the federal level.

 

[7_Sorrows]

English is the de facto national language of the United States, with 82% of the population claiming it as a mother tongue, and some 96% claiming to speak it “well” or “very well.” However, no official language exists at the federal level.

yeah, that is why all official government business is done in english.

 

[LisaA]

yeah, that is why all official government business is done in english.

Well I’m not too sure about that. I know that for voting that ballots and information in many languages are required although the idea that someone is eligible to vote and cannot read English rather horrifies me.

I wish English WERE declared the official language but everytime this is brought up, there is a cadre of opposing voices. It seems like a non-issue but apparently there is a vocal group opposing what seems like a logical action.

Lisa

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

yeah, that is why all official government business is done in english.

English is, as I noted, the de facto national language, not the de jure official language. BTW, U.S. official government business in Puerto Rico is done also in Spanish.

 

[ProVobis]

Again, the defense of this country is one of the things that the feds are SUPPOSED to do. Wars being what they are, well they are a little hard to anticipate.

Sure, they’re supposed to do. But they’re also supposed to be FUNDED NOW, not leave it to the next generation, whether it’s $100 Billion or $100 Trillion. The Democrats were as much to blame for the underfunding as was Bush.