Mitt Romney promises war with Iran if he gets elected

It was implicit that McCain would have done the same. I think everyone understood this.

Remember him actually singing a song, "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran"? I mean, he had to be pretty excited about it if he actually got on stage and sang about it.

So, nothing new there.

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
What kind of politcal campaign tactics is this man being advised on? Promising war, 1 year before the elections?

He's not the only one. A few debates ago, Michele Bachmann was up there pounding the podium with her fists declaring that Iran must be stopped. It was quite hilarious in the sort of way that you couldn't take her seriously.

Yes, they are all sort of slowly but surely doing themselves in. Meanwhile, the media and the strings that control them are attempting damage control for Perry, and Cain is getting donations from Lord knows who.

I'm not even sure what Mitt really stands for. He's always just standing there grinning at the debates, it's really quite disturbing.

Wait.. aren't mormon's supposed to be... sort of peaceful?

And willing to ... promise a war... so he can get more votes? A war that is supposed to have congress' consent... although even Obama just sidesteps that little inconvenience now.. funny how even candidates feel free to bypass congress in advance.

Amazing

The only consolation is politicians rarely follow through on promises.

Originally posted by IamCorrect
It was implicit that McCain would have done the same. I think everyone understood this.

Remember him actually singing a song, "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran"? I mean, he had to be pretty excited about it if he actually got on stage and sang about it.

So, nothing new there.

edit on 11-11-2011 by IamCorrect because: (no reason given)

I just puked in my mouth a little.

Is it just me or are all of these candidates a joke? (Not Paul). I mean, really, you cant make this stuff up.

I really don't understand one thing about America. Many Americans (who support the likes of such Republicans nominees such as Mit Romney) are 100% opposed to raising taxes, infact they want to continue to cut taxes Ronald Reagan and Bush style (i.e. cut tax rates on the wealthy, ensuring that the poor pay a higher tax rate than the wealthy and that while the wealthy contribute what is a vast sum, they pay a lower rate). Many American tremble in fear at the idea of increasing outlays on things such as welfare, healthcare and education, sometimes understandably given the wasteful beauracratic system in America. However, when it comes to the military many refuse to cutback. In America "you can't feed the poor, but you can fund a war". A war of choice. There is a mentality in America that is driving a great country to the bottom. A great empire, coming closer to its end will howl and scream louder than ussually. The expenditure on America's wars and its military is its howling and screaming.

reply to post by AphexTwins
LOL,I guess we can safly say now he wont get elected.This generation of up and coming voters are so past the evil teachings of what they listened to mama and papa and friends talk about at the house.This rhetoric is SO ancient...SO NOT KOOL !

Maybe TPTB want Obama to get relected hence all this talk of war i.e Israel, now Romney! Perrys disaster. This way TPTB keep the 2 term cycle rolling because it best suits their purpose!

It doesnt matter to TPTB which party! They control and influence either just the same!

Its the mechanisms that influence either party when in Government thats the key!

All that matters to TPTB is the FR (The Private Gangster Families Bank), CFA, Bilderberg Mob, Corps, Other Interest Groups.

Who is POTUS and which party is irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The security clearance level the POTUS has says it all !!!!!!!!!

US needs to get rid of the FR and a new 3rd party, this is the only way to begin to change the status quo!!!!

It dont look good for all but even less for US folk me thinks!

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by AphexTwins

 

Nothing new here, honestly. Other than Paul, I believe the rest of the republican candidates are all hawks.

You might have to dig to be able to quibble over their respective level of hawkishness, but there is no real shortage to the sabre-rattling with most of this crew. Ignorant, unnecessary (except, perhaps, to win the nomination? Hopefully not the presidency, certainly...), and full of unintended consequences.

This crew worries me greatly.

I disagree with the rest of the candidates being hawks. IMO, they are wannabes, RP is the only true hawk running. He is the only candidate who understands that in order to have a strong presence elsewhere you have to have your own house in order first.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


Looking at their respective ages, I think he would have to be Fonzie's son.

Maybe a look alike cousin?

reply to post by Dembow


the military gets a rather respectable portion of the budget pie now...and....
they can't dispose of the remains of their dead with respect...
they can't take care of the returning vets
they aren't sure half the time if they are gonna be able to pay the service members.
they can't find funding for body armor, had to send home letters encouraging family members to start charity drives for that
they can't replace the ships that they retire
they can't provide working guns to train with
they can't repair or replace the equipment that they've already torn up with their wars!!!

we don't need a strong army, we need more integrity in the upper echelons of the pentagon, ya know, the ones who are deciding just where all this money that they are getting is going to to begin with!!!
and, we definately don't need another war!! spend some of that budget repairing the equipment that has been torn up, replace our ships, provide our troops with working guns!!! quit cutting the funding to the vets!!!

then, and only then, will I entertain the idea of another war!!!

It is outrageous for Romney, a candidate, to promote doing it. But for Obama to actually do it is no big deal? And please no Boosh talk. The argument for Obama is no the argument against Boosh. Boosh sucked too.

All presidents are bankster puppets. Wake up for poo sakes.

Originally posted by AphexTwins
news.yahoo.com...

Accusing President Barack Obama of naivete on Iran, Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney promised Thursday that if elected president he would "prepare for war" with the Islamic republic.

In a commentary published in the Wall Street Journal, Romney said he would back up US diplomacy "with a very real and very credible military option," deploying carrier battle groups to the Gulf and boosting military aid to Israel.

"'Si vis pacem, para bellum.' That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war," he said.

(visit the link for the full article)

This is just outrageous, a candidate for presidency shouldn't promote murder. Why would someone in such a position even consider using propaganda like this. Do people really fall for this kind of garbage?

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


Thats a great line to encourge more budget spending on arms that nations cannot afford in an arms race. Its also a great line for the military industrial complex. But is it true?

In some countries we don't have leaders who make rational decisions (to our understanding of rationality), or it may be true that some countries have a political philosophy - say nazism or fundamentalism which doesn't place much importance on how prepared the enemy is.

In the end the opposite of what you say is true. If every nation is prepared for peace there will be peace.

On the topic itself Romney obviously believes that there are votes to be gained by preaching war. I think there is a history of fighting talk in US politics that suggests that if US citizens feel under threat they will vote for politicians that use war talk. However, there are 2 problems for Romney, first is that US citizens don't particularly feel under threat at the moment - they have other things on their mind. Second this is a time of spending cuts, everybody knows it. People are not stupid, its the worst time to be talking war of this kind,

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

OMG! It's almost like everything is just leading towards Ron Paul being the only viable candidate...

Even though the elections are a year away, it's crazy to think that Mitt would shoot himself in the foot this early, for I truly think that comment will be his demise. His thought process is still stuck in the Bush Brain Washed Era, and the average American is becoming fed up with it.

I'm actually quite amazed that he would say something like this, it kinda blows my mind.


What kind of politcal campaign tactics is this man being advised on? Promising war, 1 year before the elections?

This isn't even worth breaking down, rather more of a relief, truly... And to think, I at one time said that I wouldn't mind if it was Ron Paul(pres.) and Mitt Romney(vice.), well that went right out the window.

Amazing that you would look at that Latin quote and misinterpret it so badly. Perhaps that is where you should start your learning curve, before deciding on who to vote for. Latin is a beautiful, although "dead", language, but there are many sources to help you understand it.

"'Si vis pacem, para bellum" does not mean promising war. A good translation of it is "If you wish for peace, prepare for war". Which is taken to mean that an enemy is far less likely to attack a prepared nation. It is practiced in nature, also, where the weak member of the herd is attacked by the predator. The strong bull members are left to fight another day. Please, use common sense when you respond. Your entire post was meant to reinforce your personal belief that "OMG! It's almost like everything is just leading towards Ron Paul being the only viable candidate..." You're an RP fan, that's nice, but don't write your response with the sole purpose of convincing yourself that you are correct.

Iran is a threat to global peace, Mitt has the right idea. Too bad current government is sitting on their bombs.

reply to post by Jim Scott

This doesn't make any sense. Obama was elected by the populace on the basis that he would get us out of the war. While it is commonly known that the President in office during a bad recession never gets re-elected, this is not an excuse for sabre-rattling by the Republicans.

As a veteran, I think there is ample evidence that (1) Iran is likely peaceful and (2) the armed forces are tired of the war overseas.

I'm sure that the troops are exhausted. But that doesn't mean Iran is likely peaceful. There is no connection between the two statements.

PTW - Peace Through War - seems to be a new battle cry for the US to justify first strike.

Another one who does not understand basic Latin. .

In the 60s we would not have been caught dead doing first strike

Ever hear of the Bay of Pigs?

Well... what a strange campaign promise! At least Romney comes up front admits he is going to start a war whereas our current President promised the opposite and then not only continued the two wars following Bush's timeline to a tee he started a new war in Libya. Either way neither of the liars get my vote.

Originally posted by jondave
Iran is a threat to global peace, Mitt has the right idea. Too bad current government is sitting on their bombs.

really? global peace? really?

which country is in the most wars across the world right now? which country has the most military bases deployed? which country spends the most on war and military? and Iran, who can't target a missile to hit a truck outside of their own borders is the one threatening global peace? get the **** outta here!

reply to post by eLPresidente

Originally posted by jondave
Iran is a threat to global peace, Mitt has the right idea. Too bad current government is sitting on their bombs.



really? global peace? really?

which country is in the most wars across the world right now? which country has the most military bases deployed? which country spends the most on war and military? and Iran, who can't target a missile to hit a truck outside of their own borders is the one threatening global peace? get the **** outta here!

Let's wander over to Africa for a moment .... examine the tribal slaughters that span any number of countries defined by undecipherable borders. Wars fought with machetes...

Or how about some of the terrorism spawned from Yemeni madmen or financed by Saudi Arabia...easily a dozen at any given moment in time...

What's going on down south these days? I hear our neighbor has corpses hanging from highway overpasses... OUR NEIGHBOR!

Sorta makes our well publicized little 3 or less skirmishes to be child's play, eh?

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27
reply to post by AphexTwins

 

LOL,I guess we can safly say now he wont get elected.This generation of up and coming voters are so past the evil teachings of what they listened to mama and papa and friends talk about at the house.This rhetoric is SO ancient...SO NOT KOOL !

They are a democracy. They are not suppose to have nukes. Only countries like China can have them, don't you know?

reply to post by Praetorius


At best, he's a chicken-hawk, just like the majority of his party and political class. He never served, and neither do any of his 5 sons.