Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Romney Aligning Himself With Israeli Hawks On Iran

Yes sir, I have. Like I said though, nukes are a small part of the big picture. I think Romney's getting a view of the big picture and knowing the power that the phrase "nuclear weapons" brings to the table, that's where his kind are making their stance.

I just wish somebody on the National Stage would stop insulting American intelligence and explain that it's a far bigger issue than some nuclear capability. Then again, maybe the average American just lacks the ability to comprehend this, and that's why politicians resort to using "catch phrases".

It's not the face of Iran that scares me, it's the heart. Is it true that a Nuclear Iran is a threat to us? YES! Is it also true that a non-nuclear Iran is a threat to us? YES!

Does that mean we need to go to war with the Nation of Iran? NO!

We just need to stop kidding ourselves and fall for the idea that this is all because of Operation Ajax. That operation was a catalyst in a movement that is far older than Western Culture....

You mean you don't believe that interventionism is to blame?

Because, that's pretty much the argument posited above...

?????

Operation Ajax = Kook definition of Interventionism.

Interventionism is to blame for all our problems.

The threat of nukes is the rallying cry of interventionist.





These are the arguments that are posited ad nauseum around here. The problem is that they simply aren't grounded in facts.

Just because people like Romney and others see Iran for the threat that they are, doesn't mean that War is the only answer.

Just because we perceive and address a threat doesn't mean that we are interventionist.

The article was basically saying that Romney is being swayed into warmongering because Israel doesn't play nice with it's neighbors.

That's just head in the sand crackpot lunacy. Israel isn't our enemy. Israel doesn't get us into fights. Threats do, period.

Where's Steve_NO to tell me I'm a Joo hater? lol

that's a different animal than saying we started it.

but that is the crux of much of these arguments - anything short of a long term decades long engagement is the equivalent to cutting and run - another idea embedded into the American psyche.

My question is - at what point does our support for a never ending engagement actually force change? When our country's credit rating is shot because of debt? When a loaf of bread is $7 or a gallon of gas is $15? When we can't build a bridge or pave a road? When we shutter police stations, schools and VA hospitals? At what level of pain do we have to suffer before Americans with your perspective say "enough - we're leaving and getting out of this craziness".

Because I believe we can both say that what we are doing is unsustainable yet the middle east issue is never ending.

For that matter our world dominance is never ending. Its an ongoing maintenance program costing hundreds of billions if not a trillion+ yearly.

How does that get resolved before our country is tanked and China becomes the worlds newest (and perhaps only) superpower?

Maybe you could elaborate on that a bit for me, as this is exactly what it's been used to say around here...



I disagree. Americans have no problem with cutting and running. I will agree with the idea that Nation Building is not strategically advantageous. Hunt and kill is.

Either strategy can become very time consuming and labor intensive. The difference is one is wasteful and unproductive, and the other is the essence of security.



The root of the problems that you are referring to has to do with the culture of endless spending in Washington. It doesn't matter if we bring all our military actions to an end, the politicians will find other things to do with that money. They sure as hell won't just be giving it back to us. Defense Spending needs to be addressed. There is no question about that. There is a lot of waste involved. I'm happy to say that I have a job now where I examine efficiency in military operations in order to cut out waste. It's nice to be a part of the solution rather than the problem.

The priority given to the Federal Government is to keep Americans safe. That's one of the reasons we switched from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. We The People demanded security. We even permitted the collection of taxes specifically for that reason. In a perfect world, Defense Spending wouldn't be 20% of our Federal Budget, it would be almost 100% of our Federal Budget (the founders saw some value in spending on the arts and sciences as well). Now, that Federal Budget would be a mere fraction of what it is today, but the point is, our Constitution is clear that the purpose of taxation is for the security of the Nation.

Ceasing all Military action would not enhance our security one bit, nor would it fix the culture of spending in Washington.

Yes, I can agree that the culture of spending in Washington is unsustainable and that threats to a free society are never ending.



Defense spending needs to be addressed. Yes.
National Defense and infrastructure are the real only reasons any spending should be happening at all, though. Never compromise on security.



Reign in Washinton, unleash America.

I hope you don't do the finances in your household.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'll help...

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Boy that Iraq was sure a threat...

It's all a fuggin crock o' schit.

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I'll help...

According to the Constitution, what's the purpose of the Federal Government?

Yeah, good luck backing that claim up, Mr. The-Whitehouse-Was-Stormed-By-The-Brits-In-1812....

How much are you paid to hang out here, HAJ?