Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

500 Retired top military brass push for Romney

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   





Retired top military brass push for Romney

Five hundred retired generals and admirals are running an ad in Monday's editions of The Washington Times calling on the country to elect Republican Mitt Romney on Tuesday.

In plain terms the officers, who paid for the ad themselves, said they support Mr. Romney: "We, the undersigned, proudly support Governor Mitt Romney as our nation's next president and commander-in-chief."

The ad then goes on to list all of the officers, in alphabetical order, in four columns of print.

List.



Any doubt this is also a reflection of the top active duty brass?


Food for thought.

edit on 5-11-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Old farts voting Republican?

NEWS!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I suspect that this is being driven by Romney saying he will not be making the cuts to military budget that the Obama administration has proposed.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I think it's a good thing, that those living in the Land of the Free...get a visual reminder from those who gave much, to keep it that way....good article Loam....


Des



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I happen to know quite a few folks in this realm...active duty and retired.

They are outraged by this president and what happened in Bengazi.

If Obama does win the election, you can bet he will be mired in this for much of the next year.

Mark my words on that.
edit on 5-11-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Retired veterans endorsing the warhawk. Not really surprised there. Especially since if he wins they won't have to worry about doing the fighting.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
Old farts voting Republican?NEWS!
Nice and very classy...just because they do not agree with your viewpoint to call someone who represents the armed services of our country.


CX

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
With all the laws passed by congress (and our parliament for that matter), why can't they stipulate that all politicians must have a family member serving in a front line infantry unit for the duration of their term?

Would be interesting to see how Romney or any other politician played the game then.

CX.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I happen to know quite a few folks in this realm...active duty and retired.

They are outraged by this president and what happened in Bengazi.

If Obama does win the election, you can bet he will be mired in this fr much of the next year.

Mark my words on that.


I totally agree with you, Loam. what they thought could be swept under the rug, has now become a veritable tsunami butting up against election day. If, Obama does win, this will be the first 10 ton weight hanging over his head, to come crashing down. This is so far beyond Fast and Furious...the tail won't be able to wag this dog.....this dog will bite!

I Pray those who are pushing the investigation into the actual events of Benghazi, keep pushing for disclosure. No matter how deep the fetid hole they must go down.

Des





edit on 5-11-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Because Romney says he will provide more funding for DOD, and historically the Republicans do provide more money for the DOD. Of course the military brass wants the guy that is going to buy them the biggest, baddest toys.

I don't think this is any indication of what the military grunts want, or who is the best candidate to ensure the safety of the nation.

Sun Tzu says it best. The only battle you can surely win, is the battle you don't have to fight. If we need the toys, then we've already limited our ability to win. A better strategy is trade, diplomacy, and intelligence.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by darkhorserider
 

.
Guess you've never heard this one...the one with the most toys wins. Toys = deterrent...

Des



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by darkhorserider
 


It's ridiculous to think that military funding is their only -or even primary- consideration.

The problems between the military and this president have much more to do with ideology and leadership approach.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkhorserider
reply to post by loam
 


Because Romney says he will provide more funding for DOD, and historically the Republicans do provide more money for the DOD. Of course the military brass wants the guy that is going to buy them the biggest, baddest toys.

I don't think this is any indication of what the military grunts want, or who is the best candidate to ensure the safety of the nation.





Sun Tzu says it best. The only battle you can surely win, is the battle you don't have to fight. If we need the toys, then we've already limited our ability to win. A better strategy is trade, diplomacy, and intelligence.



I think you may have oversimplified the issue by suggesting that it solely about funding for military hardware. I don't know the current numbers employed in the US military, but I would be prepared to bet it is a significant percentage of the total workforce. If those numbers employed in related, and supporting industries are taken into account I would assume that is a very large amount of people that would have to seek work elsewhere in a very competitive job market.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by darkhorserider
 

.
Guess you've never heard this one...the one with the most toys wins. Toys = deterrent...

Des

Wow, becuase you know warfare better than Sun Tzu...
Tell your little phrase to the vietcong, I am sure they will enjoy it.
I hope the majority of our military votes for neither of those two puppet bastards, and I am surprised any of you still even bother arguing for one of them.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by darkhorserider
 


It's ridiculous to think that military funding is their only -or even primary- consideration.

The problems between the military and this president have much more to do with ideology and leadership approach.




Sure, the funding and the toys are part of the ideology and leadership. I'm not endorsing Obama, but I'm certainly not endorsing Romney either. I think the brass is primarily concerned with the money, and the level of their role in military leadership, as they should be. BUT, that is a selfish perspective from their viewpoint, and it is not necessarily the best perspective for the well-being of the country.

More military might, and more aggressive stances towards our enemies is not necessarily the best prescription for the ailment. Kill the patient to treat the disease if you will.

The top 500 military brass will not be on the front lines in Syria and Iran when Romney gets elected. Those kids dying will be our sons and daughters, not the brass.

I'm a big supporter of the military, and I want them well-equipped, and I want them well-trained and ready to respond to any threat, but I don't see Iran and Syria and Afghanistan and Iraq as a threat to the US. They are only threats to themselves and our cheap oil supply.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I am not a war monger, but I don't mind having a powerful military, it is insane to want a weak one, IMHO



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by hotel1
 


The economy needs an overhaul anyway.

Your thought process is probably precisely why we still have so much military deployed. They don't want to bring them home while the job market is so scarce.

It seems our leadership has forgotten about innovation and invention. Having a struggling economy, failing businesses, and high unemployment numbers is a ripe breeding grounds for the future innovation and invention that will fuel the next century of US dominance!

Bailing out failing businesses, and pacifying the population with social benefits, and keeping the military deployed overseas, and using the intelligence community to keep all the other countries even deeper in chaos than we are, and using our economical might to pull the rest of the world down to our level is not the best recipe for progress.

We are intentionally delaying progress and innovation!

How about, for a change, we just do the right thing and let the cards fall where they may? Let the people surprise us with their abilities to survive and adapt and persevere and evolve!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
Old farts voting Republican?

NEWS!


"In the old days we didn't have a crippling national debt. Why did those damn librrrrulz have to go and make that stuff? Young people are stupid."



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkhorserider

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by darkhorserider
 


It's ridiculous to think that military funding is their only -or even primary- consideration.

The problems between the military and this president have much more to do with ideology and leadership approach.




Sure, the funding and the toys are part of the ideology and leadership. I'm not endorsing Obama, but I'm certainly not endorsing Romney either. I think the brass is primarily concerned with the money, and the level of their role in military leadership, as they should be. BUT, that is a selfish perspective from their viewpoint, and it is not necessarily the best perspective for the well-being of the country.

More military might, and more aggressive stances towards our enemies is not necessarily the best prescription for the ailment. Kill the patient to treat the disease if you will.

The top 500 military brass will not be on the front lines in Syria and Iran when Romney gets elected. Those kids dying will be our sons and daughters, not the brass.

I'm a big supporter of the military, and I want them well-equipped, and I want them well-trained and ready to respond to any threat, but I don't see Iran and Syria and Afghanistan and Iraq as a threat to the US. They are only threats to themselves and our cheap oil supply.


I take your point, and it is well made. The truth of what you say about the oil supply is of course self evident. As these five hundred are retired military then they obviously will be nowhere near any fighting, but if you have the same situation that we have here in the UK you can bet many of these retired brass will be major shareholders in various defence contractors, and industries.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


Well its news towards to the Romney supporters and the Romney supporters on twitter are going in a frenzy over it the news that 500 Retired top military brass push for Romney.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join