Romney in 2007: "I would have longed for the chance to be serving in the military."

[PJABBER]

I'll leave the weekend warrior shit at the door,

I wasn't a "weekend warrior" since I was on active duty, but anyone who has served in the past decade or so with multiple active deployments with the National Guard and Reserves could to take you aside for a few minutes to set you straight about the ops tempo they have been on.

but I'll assume since you were an officer you are aware of LDRSHIP.

Very.

Loyalty - Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers.
Duty - Fulfill your obligations.
Respect - Treat people as they should be treated.
Selfless Service - Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.
Honor - Live up to all the Army values.
Integrity - Do what’s right, legally and morally.
Personal Courage - Face fear, danger, or adversity

Couldn't agree more.

I bolded the parts in which Mitt Romney is severely flawed (notice it's all bolded), but specifically Duty and Respect.

You will have to do better in describing by specific example where you think Romney has these flaws since almost everyone who has worked with him has a different viewpoint than yours.

Why do I think Obama is a better Commander in Chief than Romney ever could be? For starters he is using Diplomacy first. He is trying not to get our young men and women killed for nothing all the while still taking the fight to our enemies.

Obama inherited wars in various places. The politicians four years ago were describing Iraq as Bush's war, Afghanistan as the Democrats' war.

Makes no difference to me, war is war.

Obama continues to prosecute the Democrats war and pulled the troops out of Iraq without a SOFA to make a political statement, so it remains to be seen how that goes.

He understands the war we are fighting,

How does he understand this? Obama has never been in harm's way.

he knows we do not need a million man army to kill Arabs.

Obama understands politics and his political base. A million man army engaged in an active war would destroy his support. He definitely prefers the remote control kind of war that drones represent. Problem is that drones don't hold ground.

He is honestly trying to end these conflicts in some fashion,

I think the word you are looking for is "unilaterally."

and if Iran comes to blows I do not believe he would put boots on the ground unlike Romney.

I agree that Obama would not put boots on the ground in Iran and likely nowhere else if he could get away with it.

Romney surrounds himself with the same people who said Iraq would be easy, that they had WMDs and we needed to go to war for the sake of freedom. The whole time during the primaries his voice was constant, his rhetoric plainly said. Then, on National TV, he agrees with EVERY SINGLE THING President Obama said about foreign policy.

I don't know of any people surrounding Romney that were part of the Iraq decision making. No one that I knew at the time thought Iraq would be easy. If anything, it was considered to be a very tough mission with high losses expected. We can argue about who knew what and when, but Romney was not part of the decision taking going on.

While I disagree with your claim that Romney agreed with everything Obama put out in the debates, if he did agree, as you claim, why would you be opposed to a candidate who agrees with your's?

I may not agree with much of anything with Obamas domestic policy, or even some of his foreign policy (why did we fuck with Lybia again?) but at least I know where he stands. With Romney I have absolutely no idea, not because I am ignorant of who he is, but because he as told me several different things at different times.

I just don't forget.

The most important choice of this election is deciding who can lead the country toward economic recovery. Obama has had almost four years to do so and has been a miserable failure.

America's greatest strategic vulnerability is economic malaise. A malaise that was extended by the Obama Administration's utter waste of over five trillion dollars on a wide variety of political payoffs and pie-in-the-sky schemes. You and everyone else is now obligated to pay off Obama's debt.

Romney, with his outstanding credentials in business turnaround and expansions is by far the best qualified candidate for the country.

Bain, Staples, Sports Authority, Domino's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Brookstone, AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Dunk'n Donuts, Sealy, Toys 'R Us, Warner Music Group, Totes, and The Weather Channel are terrific success stories that can be directly attributed to his skills. You can also read up on what he did to make the Olympics viable when they were crashing hard.

Romney is not your most likely candidate to go to war. A weak America and a weak President like Obama invites challenges that a strong America and a strong President like Romney would deter.

You should consider that in making your choice for a new President.

 

[nextJin]

I wasn't a "weekend warrior" since I was on active duty, but anyone who has served in the past decade or so with multiple active deployments with the National Guard and Reserves could to take you aside for a few minutes to set you straight about the ops tempo they have been on.



Very.



Couldn't agree more.



You will have to do better in describing by specific example where you think Romney has these flaws since almost everyone who has worked with him has a different viewpoint than yours.



Obama inherited wars in various places. The politicians four years ago were describing Iraq as Bush's war, Afghanistan as the Democrats' war.

Makes no difference to me, war is war.

Obama continues to prosecute the Democrats war and pulled the troops out of Iraq without a SOFA to make a political statement, so it remains to be seen how that goes.



How does he understand this? Obama has never been in harm's way.



Obama understands politics and his political base. A million man army engaged in an active war would destroy his support. He definitely prefers the remote control kind of war that drones represent. Problem is that drones don't hold ground.



I think the word you are looking for is "unilaterally."



I agree that Obama would not put boots on the ground in Iran and likely nowhere else if he could get away with it.



I don't know of any people surrounding Romney that were part of the Iraq decision making. No one that I knew at the time thought Iraq would be easy. If anything, it was considered to be a very tough mission with high losses expected. We can argue about who knew what and when, but Romney was not part of the decision taking going on.

While I disagree with your claim that Romney agreed with everything Obama put out in the debates, if he did agree, as you claim, why would you be opposed to a candidate who agrees with your's?



The most important choice of this election is deciding who can lead the country toward economic recovery. Obama has had almost four years to do so and has been a miserable failure.

America's greatest strategic vulnerability is economic malaise. A malaise that was extended by the Obama Administration's utter waste of over five trillion dollars on a wide variety of political payoffs and pie-in-the-sky schemes. You and everyone else is now obligated to pay off Obama's debt.

Romney, with his outstanding credentials in business turnaround and expansions is by far the best qualified candidate for the country.

Bain, Staples, Sports Authority, Domino's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Brookstone, AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Dunk'n Donuts, Sealy, Toys 'R Us, Warner Music Group, Totes, and The Weather Channel are terrific success stories that can be directly attributed to his skills. You can also read up on what he did to make the Olympics viable when they were crashing hard.

Romney is not your most likely candidate to go to war. A weak America and a weak President like Obama invites challenges that a strong America and a strong President like Romney would deter.

You should consider that is in making your choice for a new President.

On the phone, so I'll keep this short. Post 9/11 Gratz to reserves and the guard. Prior? Please....

Specifically on him agreeing with Obama why shouldn't I like him...

BECAUSE he fucking said differently all throughout the primary. Just like he does with everything, he wouldn't know the first thing about LDRSHIP if he did he would stand fast by his comments.

So spare me, I'd rather not be served a shit sandwich and they want me to go fight in yet another pointless war that their children will never have to be burdened with.

 

[PJABBER]

Mainly for work, but also to serve my country.

Fair enough. I went to Basic Training as I needed a job to pay my college bills and wanted to do something that wasn't passive and boring. Absolutely loved being in the field and signed a seven year contract to get my commission. I stayed in because I was lucky enough to get fast tracked through the schools (ABN, RGR) and leadership slots with high speed, low drag units.

Obama seems to have a better handle than Bush II when it comes to invading other countries. At least Bush I understood it would be a bad thing to do a full invasion of Iraq.

Obama will never invade even if there is a pressing need to do so. He would lose his political base and he would never risk that. Look at how long he took to make the obvious call to get Osama, look at how he took the fatal hesitation at Benghazi.

I will argue that makes him a weak President, one that stronger willed opponents will take for granted.

I get the feeling Romney will do whatever the Military Industrial Complex / contractors would like to make $$, which means invading a country like Iran.

I honestly don't believe Romney is on the Industrial side of the Military/Industrial cabal. His businesses were mostly on the consumer side and not heavy industry.

It will take a very strong reason indeed for the US to commit troops to an Iranian land war.

If Iran has to be attacked it will be because the shit has hit the fan and they were not deterred from nuclear weapons.

Again, a weak American government invites adventurism by not only Iran but by other powers such as Russia and China. Not to mention the problem autocracies closer to home such as Venezuela.

Bush II and Cheney had no respect for the troops and I feel Romney would do the same.

Bush and Cheney were and remain close to the troops that served while they were in office. Though I was personally out by the time of the Iraq wars, I can say this with certainty as many of the junior officers and enlisted that served with me stayed in touch and offered up a much different perspective than yours.

I suggest you read the following, it did not get much coverage and should have -

EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately

I much better like Obama's approach of strike from a distance, use special forces, or use tech to take out the terrorists. Some would argue about the collateral damage, but I would ask how many innocent people died in Iraq from 2003 - 2011 vs those who died in drone strikes under Obama. Obama also seems on track for getting us out of the region, I get the feeling Romney will stay if not expand (Iran).

As an ex-infantry officer I like strike from a distance as well. I never wanted to be in a situation where there had to be a trade of lives for ground or life for life attrition, but I understood that it is the boots on the ground that win wars and secure the peace. I experienced this up close and personal in the infantry, but it was my time in civil affairs that made me a real believer.

Not all armed conflict is against terrorists and non-state actors, there are plenty of state conflicts and wars. Our military forces have to be ready for broader conflict as well as a counter-terrorism mission.

And there we do have a stark difference between Obama and Romney. Romney has stated that preparation and strength are needed since all wars are now "come as you are" and Obama is perfectly willing to take the chance that a drawn down military is "good enough" so long as we give up the role we have played in the world since WWII.

If I had to fight, I would not want to have to fight with "good enough." I know that cost cutting approach ultimately costs more lives and takes the risk of not having enough of what is needed when the need is truly there.

Why would I vote for a President that promises just a "good enough" military?

Why would you?

 

[Thump553]

I'm from the Vietnam generation. As a pre-teen I was pro-war but switched sometime in '67 or '68-and George Romney's statements were a big factor in me changing my mind. I did not serve-I was in a lottery year and had an extremely high number. I had friends that volunteered, friends that got drafted, friends that ran to Canada and friends that went to prison.

Frankly if you talk to any Vietnam era male today, the one group that is universally detested is those that vocally supported the war (Mitt was a pro-war demonstrator) but found reasons and ways to avoid service.

Cliff's F*** you Willard and the horse you rode in on. All talk the talk, never walk the walk.

 

[HomerJS]

Fair enough. I went to Basic Training as I needed a job to pay my college bills and wanted to do something that wasn't passive and boring. Absolutely loved being in the field and signed a seven year contract to get my commission. I stayed in because I was lucky enough to get fast tracked through the schools (ABN, RGR) and leadership slots with high speed, low drag units.



Obama will never invade even if there is a pressing need to do so. He would lose his political base and he would never risk that. Look at how long he took to make the obvious call to get Osama, look at how he took the fatal hesitation at Benghazi.

I will argue that makes him a weak President, one that stronger willed opponents will take for granted.



I honestly don't believe Romney is on the Industrial side of the Military/Industrial cabal. His businesses were mostly on the consumer side and not heavy industry.

It will take a very strong reason indeed for the US to commit troops to an Iranian land war.

If Iran has to be attacked it will be because the shit has hit the fan and they were not deterred from nuclear weapons.

Again, a weak American government invites adventurism by not only Iran but by other powers such as Russia and China. Not to mention the problem autocracies closer to home such as Venezuela.



Bush and Cheney were and remain close to the troops that served while they were in office. Though I was personally out by the time of the Iraq wars, I can say this with certainty as many of the junior officers and enlisted that served with me stayed in touch and offered up a much different perspective than yours.

I suggest you read the following, it did not get much coverage and should have -

EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately



As an ex-infantry officer I like strike from a distance as well. I never wanted to be in a situation where there had to be a trade of lives for ground or life for life attrition, but I understood that it is the boots on the ground that win wars and secure the peace. I experienced this up close and personal in the infantry, but it was my time in civil affairs that made me a real believer.

Not all armed conflict is against terrorists and non-state actors, there are plenty of state conflicts and wars. Our military forces have to be ready for broader conflict as well as a counter-terrorism mission.

And there we do have a stark difference between Obama and Romney. Romney has stated that preparation and strength are needed since all wars are now "come as you are" and Obama is perfectly willing to take the chance that a drawn down military is "good enough" so long as we give up the role we have played in the world since WWII.

If I had to fight, I would not want to have to fight with "good enough." I know that cost cutting approach ultimately costs more lives and takes the risk of not having enough of what is needed when the need is truly there.

Why would I vote for a President that promises just a "good enough" military?

Why would you?

Take a look at Romney's foriegn policy advisors and ask yourself, "Why would I want to go down that road again?"