Are you referring to SA's post that he will start a war with Iran ? IMO Romney has made it clear if elected he will start a war with Iran http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...docId=CNG.157e26ff13a2c531647ebb82af797d37.91 Romney says 'prepare for war' against Iran WASHINGTON â 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. "These actions will send an unequivocal signal to Iran that the United States, acting in concert with allies, will never permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons," he wrote. Romney, a frontrunner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, keyed his column to a International Atomic Energy Agency report this week citing "credible evidence" that Iran had worked on a nuclear explosive device. Iran denies it is developing nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear program is for generating electricity, but the report has prompted calls in the West for tougher UN sanctions and demands by Israel for world to act to prevent Tehran for getting nuclear weapons. Romney said the United States "needs a very different policy." "'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. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...ran-Where-Mitt-Romney-and-Rick-Santorum-stand Bomb Iran? Where Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum stand. The two strongest Republican candidates to emerge from the Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, both are open to bombing Iran's nuclear weapons program. Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum emerged as the twin frontrunners after the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday, and this is likely to have interesting reverberations for Iran. Why Iran? Because both former Gov. Romney and former Sen. Santorum are hard critics of the Obama administrationâs handling of the country that Romney sees as Americaâs largest threat. Both men have said they would bomb Iran if that country developed nuclear weapons. Both believe that Obamaâs efforts to negotiate with Iran sends a signal of weakness. And if one of these men emerges as the Republican candidate to go up against Obama, the Republican party will attempt to play to what it regards as its strength â security and foreign policy â and the rhetoric against Iran is only likely to grow sharper. Obamaâs approach to Iran, of course, is shaped by his campaign promise to abandon the unilateralism of the Bush administration, and to work closely with Americaâs allies to deal with mutual threats, using methods short of war. While the US took the lead in dealing with supposed threats in Iraq â launching the war promising to go after Saddam Husseinâs alleged âweapons of mass destructionâ â Europe has taken the lead in dealing with Iran through âcritical dialogueâ and reminding Iran of its promises to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Most of the Republican candidates portray this carrot-and-stick approach as weakness, and call for military options. http://milwaukeestory.com/index.php...licy-advisers-served-under-george-w-bush-360/ 23 of Romneyâs foreign policy advisers served under George W Bush George W Bush has not been a central topic in this GOP election cycle but significant elements of his administration are lurking in the shadows of the Romney campaign. Twenty three of Romney's senior advisers served under Bush in some capacity, several serving in key roles in the administration. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005-2009, a champion of full body scanners and TSA security techniques, is one of the most recognizable names on Romney's national security team. Another notable name is Michale Hayden, Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) from '99-'05 and then Director of the CIA from 2006-'09. Then there is the notorious Cofer Black, former Vice Chairman of Blackwater, who served the Bush administration as the State Department's Ambassador-at-large for counter terrorism from 2002-04. There are also lesser known names on Romney's list that played key roles in the Bush Administration. Meghan O'Sullivan was deputy national security adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan under George W Bush. According to Bob Woodward's book State of Denial O'Sullivan was the original champion of the surge strategy in Iraq. She also served on the political front in Iraq in the early days of the war.
Not the same as starting an "immediate war" with Iran. Besides, if our military leaders are doing their job they are gaming a war with Iran (and all other plausible enemies).
Few American voters perceive that a vote for any candidate equates to more war. One of Odumbo's campaign promises (aka LIES) was to stop the Bush wars. We all know how that turned out. Even if your assertion proves correct, a war with Iran would likely do less damage to America than Odumbo serving another term.
July 30, 2012 SouthAmerica: Reply to Ricter You said that the information was false, and now you are saying that "It is not at all necessary to make stuff up with which to criticize Romney." Please check these videos and let me know which part is not clear to you that Mitt Romney will start a war against Iran if he is elected president of the United States: Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval - June 19, 2012 <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0lEsB8p8zc0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> ***** Republican Party debate 2012 on November 12, 2011- Mitt Romney said he would star a war against Iran... Romney on A Nuclear Iran â and USA war against Iran <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1rMZH587p1A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> ***** 2012 Republican debate on CNN on the February 22, 2012 2012 Republican Candidates on Iran and Syria <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kWQt3a4s2XY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> .
Obama promised to end Iraq ,send more troops to Afghanistan and get Bin Laden..Promise kept on all 3 issues
July 30, 2012 SouthAmerica: Reply to Spiker I have been anti-war on my articles and postings since 2002, and if you are anti-war in the USA a lot people think that you are also anti-American. I have been also against the Bush administration since they were a bunch of idiots who were destroying this country...and they have the track record to show the destruction to the US economy that they caused.... See if this is the writing and postings of and anti-USA: What is a better US Gov investment for Future - Military Spending or Infrastructure? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=54027 August 18, 2005 SouthAmerica: Long before 9/11 I have been advocating on my writings that the United States should spend less money in military spending and the money should go instead into building and up-dating the infrastructure of the American economy. You can read on the following website where, in my opinion, the US government should be investing its scarce resources: "ASCE" website xxxxxxxxxx Besides the above areas of investment the US government should invest on a new generation of Shuttles with state-of-art-technologies and know how, and should send to museums the current fleet of Shuttles, because these Shuttles represent technologies on an age long gone. The US government also should help cities around the country to wire itself with state-of-the-art high speed Broadband technology. PLEASE stop wasting money on wars that the US canât win, and instead invest the money wisely in a way that will help many American generations in the future. REMINDER: As Americans are wasting a ton of money to try to project the illusion of military power around the world â the other major economies around the world are not wasting time and money instead they are investing its resources more wisely to help develop and support their economies of the future. Note: Today the American infrastructure is decaying so fast that it is like a bad joke. August 19, 2005 SouthAmerica: You can read the "ASCE" report for 2005, since the report is back online at: https://apps.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=145 .