Comments on: When It Comes to War Mitt Romney is George W. Bush With Magic Underwear

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 30 May 2012 14:09:33 +0000

How has Obama weakened the military? He has made it stronger. He is not a war monger, so the world doesn’t have to worry so much about war. Why is China ramping up it’s military? To keep us in check in the western Pacific area. Romney, wants to add $2 T in military spending in the next ten years. Paid for by cuts to social programs and higher taxes on the 99%, while giving away another ten percent tax cut to rich and corporations. This will put unemployment at 40%, probably. This is a scary man, indeed. We have to vote Obama and get the House back and retain the Senate, or else this country is done.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Shiva (Moderator)

Shiva (Moderator) — Tue, 29 May 2012 19:51:27 +0000

Obama did not drive that effort. It was a NATO operation that we took part in. In fact many were clamoring to ask why Obama was not taking part when it all first started.

The US took the first part of that operation becuase we have the aircraft and the equipment to do what was to be done. Lindsay Graham, McCain and Lieberman were all over Obama for not going in first without NATO

What do you think? 0 0

By: Erica

Erica — Tue, 29 May 2012 19:34:49 +0000

“Republicans clamored for America to start a war with Iran, invade Libya, and recently to get involved militarily in Syria.”

I’m a little confused by this statement. I distinctly remember Republicans complaining that Obama was violating the War Powers Act by intervening in Libya. In fact, wasn’t Kucinich’s resolution demanding full withdrawal from Libya starting to gain traction with Republicans at one point? Obviously, there were Republicans on board with the Libya campaign, but I think it’s a huge stretch to lay that one completely at their door. It really seemed like Obama was the chief figure driving that conflict with plenty of Democrat support.

Also, after the Houla massacre, even the UN is beginning to suggest that military action against Syria may be necessary. Syria is starting to look like one of those rare circumstances where military action may be necessary.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Tue, 29 May 2012 16:04:14 +0000

I am reposting a link I have posted several times before:

www.loonwatch.com2012/05/...

The huge military is not needed for defense. It is needed for the PNAC agenda: perpetual wars of conquest abroad; perpetual pauperization and peonization at home. It is further an absorber of unlettered and thwarted boys who might otherwise turn violent against their overlords at home; it is a means of co-opting them, through induction into a macho-stupid, militaristic culture, into a force that can be used to put down the remainder of the populace. This is not speculation. It is being done now. Rott is the marionette. We cannot let the puppeteers take control.

What do you think? 0 0

By: A Walkaway

A Walkaway — Tue, 29 May 2012 14:56:34 +0000

Small point… I don’t think we lost much if any respect by going into Afghanistan. I remember how the world stood with us (excepting some areas of the Mideast) on 9/11. I remember some resistance to Afghanistan, but my memory was that it wasn’t universal… only here and there (during that period we listened to shortwave broadcasts for more accurate news). The losses started when he used lies to open the door for going into Iraq.

If any nation is a threat to world peace, it is this one, because of the size and power of the military. We cut back on that and people in other countries won’t feel like they have a dragon breathing down their neck, waiting for the first mistake. Romney is in himself a major threat to world peace, and any politician not dedicated to peace itself is a problem and threat.

What do you think? 0 0