It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

romney considering General Petreaus for V P spot

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
www.drudgereport.com...

Just breaking, Romney is said to have had a meeting with the General recently. General Petreaus has repeatedly said he doesn't have any political ambitions, however I have heard many support the idea.

So I figured I would see what all the smart people of ATS think about it. I personally think a military man is good for the presidency, as they actually know what it is like to serve. Which myself and some others believe will put a check on waging wars by politicians that have not served thus have no idea what sacrifices are necessary.

I only hope if Petreaus is tapped he will inject much needed insight and clarity to the administration. A life long public servant has to be better than a life long politician. I mean he couldn't be any worse could he?




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
It doesn't help that every time I hear that man's name, I hear "Betray Us".


This does not give me any love for Romney.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
The American people want the troops to come home in overwhelming numbers so what does the Republican candidate do? Ask a top general to be his vp. This is how disconnected both Romney and Obama are from the people of this country... if true of course.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
2 men that love going to war. sounds great.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Lannister
 


I agree, as a vet the matter of our troops hits home for me. I know what it is like to be away for so lo ng so often, it cost me a marriage( nobodys fault, we both just grew apart after a couple of years with little personal contact.) And a home. It is hard enough when your just out training for weeks at a time. A 18 month tour in Iraq or Afghanistan is a long time, and the transitin home from combat is not easy.

I just hope that Patreaus if picked will be the leader the troops need, not the pawn the presidential candidate wants.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by Lannister
 


I agree, as a vet the matter of our troops hits home for me. I know what it is like to be away for so lo ng so often, it cost me a marriage( nobodys fault, we both just grew apart after a couple of years with little personal contact.) And a home. It is hard enough when your just out training for weeks at a time. A 18 month tour in Iraq or Afghanistan is a long time, and the transitin home from combat is not easy.

I just hope that Patreaus if picked will be the leader the troops need, not the pawn the presidential candidate wants.


I doubt it. These are warmongers and Romney seems to be even more of a warmonger than Obama or even Bush. I love the mentality though. The country is trillions in debt, people can't find a job... but don't cut "defense"! How then could Israel fight it's holy war against the evil brown people?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Lannister
 


Starred

For your clarity of thought. I totally agree that we need to cut spending for defense. We already have almost 2 generations of tech above any other military on Earth( that we know of). We spend more on defense a year than almost the rest of the world combined. Our navy is larger than almost every navy combined.etc..

We should pull our troops back, and stop getting in other peoples business. If they want to be idiots and kill eachother, I say we let them. We had our own civvil war to decide the future of our people. Why dont we allow otbers to figure out their own problems?

The entire world hates us for being in others business, we should stop right now! I say we demand that our leaders bring ALL our troops home, cut defense spending by 2/3 today and mothball our entire navy except for a pacific and an atlantic fleet. One carrier battle group for the east coast, one for the west coast.

Then we should audit every single dollar paid out to " the military industrial complex" and find out how many traitors from that sector go to jail for treason sedition and crimes against humanity, all in the name of profits.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Petreaus' has experience with invading another country (his only experience really). Romney has all but declared war on Iran and will be hell bent on starting the next round of trillion-dollar Middle East wars.

He doesn't want a diplomat or an economist, he wants a war hero to ease the path to more war.
edit on 7-8-2012 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


I hope your wrong, good lord I hope your wrong. I don't find any flaws in your logic though, and it mirrors my reservations about this scenario.

Star for your thoughts, even though I hope your wrong, for all of our sakes.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I would think this would be more a meeting about a Sec Def or other Cabinet position. Petreaus would do nothing for the ticket. Romney neeps a GOP hard lined with solid GOP support to shore up the base because his own backgroud makes him a RINO.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
I would think this would be more a meeting about a Sec Def or other Cabinet position. Petreaus would do nothing for the ticket. Romney neeps a GOP hard lined with solid GOP support to shore up the base because his own backgroud makes him a RINO.


Totally agree. Petreaus as VP would probably lose Romney votes which is not what he wants.

But then again, I'm voting for "Neither of the above."
I keep my votes local.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join