This is another inaccurate comment, i hate to be on the side that is arguing war was infact cheaper than we expected cause i am 100% against all of this.... But if anything the fact is we are becoming much more efficient at war mongering, and it is taking less and less actual people to engage in wars these days...... 20-30 years from now im sure we will have it down to a science where we require almost zero troops to actually show up at a war scene...... Thats whats more scary than anything about the direction we are going, soon it wont be much different from a video game, provided you arent the unfortunate civilian living in the war zone.....
The Neo Cons have their current puppet. 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://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/romney-calls-for-more-defense-spending/ Romney Calls for More Defense Spending MT. PLEASANT, S.C. â Standing among retired airplanes on the U.S.S. Yorktown, a decommissioned World War II aircraft carrier, Mitt Romney told a small group of veterans on Thursday that given the global threats to Americaâs interests, the nationâs defense spending should be increased instead of cut. Acknowledging that waste and excess spending exist within the Defense Department, Mr. Romney still called for increasing the Pentagonâs budget. http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-pullout-signature-failure-obama-romney-203147930.html Iraq pullout a "signature failure" for Obama: Romney LITTLETON, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Thursday attacked U.S. President Barack Obama for a "signature failure" to keep some troops in Iraq to prevent the country falling back into sectarian conflict. Just days after U.S. troops left Iraq, a wave of bombings killed at least 72 people in Baghdad on Thursday. The Shi'ite-led government is engulfed in a crisis that risks fracturing Iraq along sectarian and ethnic fault lines. A consistent front-runner in polls of Republicans, Romney said he feared leaving Iraq without a stabilization force could put the hard-earned successes and victories there at risk. "I hope that risk is not realized. I hope that we're able to see stability there but the president's failure to secure an agreement and maintain 10,000 to 30,000 troops in Iraq has to be one of his signature failures," he told Reuters. http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-14/news/29657598_1_afghanistan-mitt-romney-pullout Mitt Romney, Ron Paul clash on Afghanistan pullout Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are disagreeing on how quickly to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Romney said at a Republican presidential debate Monday that generals in Afghanistan should guide the pullout schedule based to conditions on the ground. He said the troops should come home as soon as possible under those conditions. Paul said the president must tell generals what to do. He said if he were president he would begin withdrawing troops almost immediately. He said the United States has no purpose fighting a war in Afghanistan.
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.
The cost IS GOING DOWN in terms of real dollars being spent on new wars..... the only reason the cost right now is sky rocketing is because some odd 20 million war vets are getting old...... We just fought a war in Iraq and afghanistan for less than 200 billion a year, compare the ongoing medical costs of these wars in inflation adjusted dollars to vietnam, korea, or world war 2.
Depends on the President imne President might prefer drones , missiles and future technology and the other might prefer ground invasion,regime change,occupy and nation build
Here is the peak cost of previous wars as a % of GDP, and as i stated before war is becoming cheaper and cheaper World War I - 13.6% of GDP World War II - 35.8% of GDP Korea - 4.2% of GDP Vietnam - 2.3% of GDP Gulf War - 0.3% of GDP Iraq - 1% of GDP Afghanistan - 0.7% of GDP Here is a link to the study.... http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
Wow, this one will probably blow peoples minds, as i know it definitely blew mine..... Our TOTAL defense spending as a percentage of GDP is actually incredibly low when compared to other war time periods..... World War I - 14.1% World War II - 37.5% Korea - 13.2% Vietnam - 9.5% Gulf War - 4.6% Iraq - 4.3% Afghanistan - 4.9%
Drone credit goes to Bush.....especially attacking into sovereign territory. The is no way in hell a Liberal Democrat would set up a drone program to murder suspected terrorists including incidental killing of family members and civilians.
As an alternative to a ground war that will kill over 100,000 civilians like the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions I think they would.Clinton attacked Al Quada with missiles from ships which is the same attack method as drones