In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal today, Mitt Romney condemned President Obama for his putative willingness to negotiate with Iran. Instead he promises that if he is elected he would immediately begin preparing for war.
In his comments, he promised to increase the deployment of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf as well as the Mediterranean while dramatically increasing military aid to Israel to “send an unequivocal signal to Iran.”
He said Obama, who only threatens Iran a few times in any given month, has “conveyed an image of American weakness” with his comparative lack of threats, and that “the ayatollahs” would have no question where a Romney Administration stood.
Romney and most of the other Republican candidates (excluding only Rep. Ron Paul) stand united in calling for even more threats against Iran. The Obama Administration is also threatening war at a pretty consistent pace, in keeping with empty US threats to attack Iran which have been going on for decades.
18 thoughts on “Romney: If Elected I’d ‘Prepare for War’ With Iran”
So, Mitt…since you're supposedly a financial wizard and fiscally responsible, how would you pay for this "image of strength"? At least Obama's posturing doesn't cost us anything – yet…
You would think that someone who has supposedly studied America's financial situation would realize that 2 unfunded and on-going wars just might have something to do with where we are now?
You twit, Mitt. This is why you're not going to get elected. The American people have made it pretty clear that we are tired of wars that do nothing but drain the treasury. That is if you're listening to the American people and not Netan-yahoo…
Obama has cost us a lot, he just knows how to do things bellow the public radar. How much did Libya cost? How much the exapanded war in Pakistan, and "surge" in Afghanistan? How much the exapnded war in Yemen and Somalia? How much this new, and as of yet, mysterious mission to Uganda? He is spending big time, and then will "agonize" over the "need" to "save" Social Security by ripping it off its 2.6 TRILLION surplus. As one of those who voted for him, I have no illusions.
I don't disagree with anything you said…but the topic of discussion was war with Iran.
Heard of Libya? Where were the massive protests in the US about that?
As if democrats would never make wars !
The reps are painting the democrats as peace movement, despite instead of withdrawing troops they made a new long prepared war against Libya and meanwhile and undeclared war against Somalia. Also Clinton did attack Yugoslavia without UN confirmation.
Playing this game as if there would be differences between both parties, both are fooling us to just process their planned wars independently of who is in office:
Subsumed short time window for wars against former soviet satellite states – Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Jemen and Iran:
(D) is for Liar.
The Dems play this game every election. They pretend to be against the wars in some way. Although, back during Dubya, if you watched closely, the Dems always did two things. They always voted for the wars and the money to fund the wars. And when they did try to be critical of Bush and his wars, they carefully criticized his decisions without ever challenging the need or usefulness of the wars. The Dems are slick. Slick Willy wasn't the only Slick Democrat. They create an aura of noise about details of the wars that they say they oppose, like Obama criticizing Bush for attacking Iraq while saying that he thought the war in Afghanistan was the ';right' war. The Dems spin that to emphasize to their base the message of opposing Bush on Iraq, but subtly state the attack as only a criticism of Bush's decision.
The problem the Dems have is that while they have almost exactly the same actual foriegn policy as the Repubs, they have to sell and spin this to their base that is much less supportive of the wars than the Repub base. Thus, the simple equation to remember, especially when it comes to wars ……………… (D) is for Liar.
In 2008, there was the strange image of the Dems pretending to be an antiwar party while at the same time the Dems had been supporting the wars by gladly passing Bush's war funding requests with their new majorities in Congress. That was almost as surreal as watching union members go door-to-door in support of the Wall Street's candidate who was taking in millions from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan et al.
The key thing to know right now is that a vote for either Dem or Repub, with a few honorable exceptions in both parties, is a vote for more war. Are you going to vote for more war in 2012?
I imagine that Romney is prepared to que-up at supply in order to receive his 782-gear and prepare for combat in Iran. He is so enamored of war that I bet he can't wait to duke it our with the Iranians. Puleeeze! Give me a break, the arm-chair warrior brigade is lining up for increased profits from the sale and use of bombs, missiles, ammunition, transport and all the other myriad utensils associated with war.
I don't think that one arm-chair, right-wing commando Member of Congress has ever heard the crack of a bullet overhead and fired in anger. They can and do however hear the incestuous-shuffle of war-profit money.
Can we ever make people who want wars pay for them?
All we need is another crazy that loves war at the expense of the average American citizen. The wars in Iraq and Afghanastan have cost the US taxpayer up to 4 trillion dollars according to some knowing think tanks. Those wars were executed with money borrowed from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and American pension funds that added to our growing global debt. A war with Iran would cost the USA at least this much again and the consequences to the Middle East cannot even be imagined. I don't know which part of the American voter base he is appealing to by such crazy talk, but there are certainly alot of crazies out there who love to hear warmongering.
WOW what an idiot. Someone should tell this guy about the modern rockets. When congress authorized the construction of the multi billion dollar aircraft carriers that we have they knew of the rocket that was impossible to stop but they were told that they would discover a system to stop the rocket. Many years later the rockets systems are better and they have never created a system to stop the older and now out of date rockets. You should not have an aircraft carrer in the Gulf and anyone who does not understand how easy they can be destroyed in a small body of water like the Gulf.
We need to get rid of our present 535 prostitutes in the house and senate and clearly we need to get rid of the AIPAC influence on the white house.
We are broke and things are not getting better but we continue to follow fools like this clown. His family was very much the product of the auto industry. I wonder why they never mention his fathers and his role in making rambler what it is today. Oh you never heard of rambler? That is because of this clowns father.
Give peace and chance and lets get a president who will not say relax Israel our kids will be better targets for your financial gain.
This is how empires fall. The people in charge are smart, but they are not smart in the things that help a nation. They are smart in the power games that put them at the top of an empire. So, they do something that is smart in their world, but that is incredibly stupid in the military world. As a campaign promise to a blood-thirsty, war-loving Republican primary electorate, this was probably a smart move. But, as 'tomofnj' points out, militarily, its an incredibly stupid move. I guess its not a surprise that a politician who doesn't understand the concept of rockets finds the concept of mid-air refueling of an airstrike completely incomprehensible. Which yes-man near Romney will be brave enough to try to tell him that a carrier doesn't have to be next to its target to be able to attack it?
This is how mighty empires that rule the world create the military defeats that makes otherwise undefeatable empires fall.
I would be so great if the US got handed its ass, and pronto. But the US will probably attack Iraq, as the Nazis attacked Russia, and that miscalculation will weaken the country even more. Please, please China: stop buying US bonds. Stop funding American aggression!
I wish Russia, China and Brazil would announce a united policy of resisting US aggression. India too, but they want our nukes. Russia might say "all options are on the table," just as the US does with such stomach-turning consistency. Someone group of nations needs to rein in this psychotic country.
we know you would mit.. We know.
Gee, how does this make Romney different from Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama? Every single one of them has 'prepared for a war with Iran'. Neither sending a carrier to the Gulf (which will just make a Carrier Task Group commander very nervous to be in confined waters) nor sending a lot of money to Israel is exactly a radical change in US policy.
WOW!!!!!!!!! Some people will do and say anything to get elected . I wish they were that concerned about America as they are about Israel. (It's all for the votes)
This is all for the love of AIPAC. This is Mitt's way of sending love messages to AIPAC. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways: Invade Iraq, Afghanistan. Bomb Iran. Say no to Palestinian statehood. Send more free weapons… the list is endless.
Good! Let's give him a gun and send him on his way. I have a feeling that Ahmadinejad will know just what to do with this Babble thumper.
Comments are closed.