The Real Mitt Romney

[BigV]

we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.

Cite.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

Cite.

We are escorting American flagged oil tankers, in the Gulf of Persia, with a fleet of Navy ships, because Iran has threatened to attack them. That's been all over the news.

But we also need a fleet to support our efforts in Afghanistan, and we need other Navy ships to help control the Pirates raiding around the Horn of Africa (and all the way down to the Seychelles).

A Cruiser in the Gulf of Persia, can't assist in the anti Pirating work, nor can that ship (no matter how advanced it is), assist in Afghanistan, if it's at sea, near the Horn of Africa.

And certainly we can't assist anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea, if our fleet is running exercises with the Japanese Navy or South Korea, or the Philippine or Australian Navy.

No matter how advanced your ships are, they can't be two or more places, at the same time.

[BigV]

Who else is trying to take advantage of our less than stellar foreign policy?

1) North Korea, which continues to expand it's range of ICBM's, despite it warnings from the UN and the US, not to. Next will be a nuclear bomb test. This is after shelling an island belonging to South Korea (which is our ally, and where we station more than ten thousand troops).

2) Al Qaeda and it's related terrorists groups in Cairo and Benghazi, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Yemen, and Mali, etc.

3) China, which continues to push for ownership of a vast area of sea between itself and Japan, and between itself and the Philippines.

4) Syria, which knows we don't have the stomach to support the rebels. Finally, we are starting to arm them.

5) Al Shabab, (an Al Qaeda linked group), who could be crushed in Somalia right now, if we gave the legitimate gov't a little help.

6) Argentina, which is calling on all South American countries to blacklist every shipping company that serves the Falklands. It has several nations signed up for this.

7) Rwanda, which is supporting a terrorist army in the Congo. We have soldiers in country to find and stop the terrorist army.

8) Iran, where the mullah's continue to thumb their nose at the US and the international community, by refining nuclear material, and supporting terrorist groups. Latest effort was to kill with a bomb, the intelligence chief in Lebanon. He was investigating the murder of his father -- chief suspect: Iran.

you sound like romney--holycrabcakes! it's scary out there, scary people, be afraaaaiiiid!!!

So, back to your list. I challenge you to name one from that list that wouldn't be there even if we had a "stellar" foreign policy.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

you sound like romney--holycrabcakes! it's scary out there, scary people, be afraaaaiiiid!!!

So, back to your list. I challenge you to name one from that list that wouldn't be there even if we had a "stellar" foreign policy.

OK. I'll pick Somalia. Al Shabob is on the run atm. With a push from us, they'd be out of business.

Are you a child to believe that these "bad actors" won't ever attack us or our allies?

North Korea MILITARY (not the government), just told South Korea that if any helium balloon leaflets were sent over the DMZ, they would open fire with artillery "mercilessly". And "the PRK Army never speaks without acting".

Does that sound like the idyllic foreign relations paradise you seem to believe in?

Wake up!
Read up!: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20000970

[piercehawkeye45]

Adak, your arguments have no reference point and therefore are worthless.

First, if these state and non-state actors were extremely passive before 2009 and then suddenly became aggressive after 2009 you would have point. That hasn't happened. State and non-state actors have tested every American president since FDR. There is no fundamental difference from what is occurring during Obama's term and prior terms.


Second, if other state and non-state actors did become more aggressive, you would need to make sure that it was due (or partly due) to a belief of American weakness and not outside factors. For example, Islamic terrorists did not just start believing America was weak in the 1990's with that belief increasing in time. An outside factor led to an increase in attacks in the 1990's and that is continuing until today.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Adak, your arguments have no reference point and therefore are worthless.

First, if these state and non-state actors were extremely passive before 2009 and then suddenly became aggressive after 2009 you would have point. That hasn't happened. State and non-state actors have tested every American president since FDR. There is no fundamental difference from what is occurring during Obama's term and prior terms.


Second, if other state and non-state actors did become more aggressive, you would need to make sure that it was due (or partly due) to a belief of American weakness and not outside factors. For example, Islamic terrorists did not just start believing America was weak in the 1990's with that belief increasing in time. An outside factor led to an increase in attacks in the 1990's and that is continuing until today.

Kicking a dead horse to make it run again, has no reference points either, but it's common sense that it won't avail you anything.

Yes, there are a plethora of other factors - always are in foreign policy. In general however, we've seen the losses we've had when we were not strong. They don't build up in a straight line, but they do build up, over time.

Believing something different will result, after you've take the same action over and over, is a sure sign of a liberal (and therefore a simple and naive) philosophy.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

Kicking a dead horse to make it run again, has no reference points either, but it's common sense that it won't avail you anything.

Yes, there are a plethora of other factors - always are in foreign policy. In general however, we've seen the losses we've had when we were not strong. They don't build up in a straight line, but they do build up, over time.

Believing something different will result, after you've take the same action over and over, is a sure sign of a liberal (and therefore a simple and naive) philosophy.

How are we kicking a dead horse? I'm assuming that was an analogy and not just worthless rambling?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

How are we kicking a dead horse? I'm assuming that was an analogy and not just worthless rambling?

We need to use our common sense in developing our policies - whether inside the country, or our foreign policy.

Let history be your guide here. We were weak before WWI, and we lost a lot of soldiers because we were unprepared, and our soldiers were horribly under trained when they arrived at the front.

After the "War to end all wars", we naturally let our military disband largely, and stopped looking like a first class military nation. Other nations, like the UK, did the same thing.

Shortly thereafter, Hitler came to power, and Germany started rebuilding it's military. We were weak, the UK was weak. Poland was terribly weak, and the French had actually gone back to using HORSES for some of their army transport! Russia with Stalin, had just killed off most of their top military leaders, because Stalin feared them. They were woeful at that time.

With that weakness all around of course Hitler felt encouraged to bully and bluster, and finally, go to war with them!

We couldn't believe it! Neither could most of the people in the UK. They were kicking the dead peace horse, waiting for it to run again and carry us all to a lasting peace.

But that horse was really dead.

Thinking that we'll have little need for a strong foreign policy, and the ability to project military strength today, is just lunacy. There is a LOT of instability in the Middle East. North Korea is a chronic hot spot, as is the recent squabbles with China and Japan over some islands that lie between them.

And then there's Al Qaeda and their several associated groups, that are quite active in Mali, Sinai, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, etc.

With the UK so very weak - NO aircraft carriers for now, and the French being headed by a Socialist, We need to be alert, and not knocking down the number of ships in our Navy.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

Let history be your guide here. We were weak before WWI, and we lost a lot of soldiers because we were unprepared, and our soldiers were horribly under trained when they arrived at the front.

After the "War to end all wars", we naturally let our military disband largely, and stopped looking like a first class military nation. Other nations, like the UK, did the same thing.

Shortly thereafter, Hitler came to power, and Germany started rebuilding it's military. We were weak, the UK was weak. Poland was terribly weak, and the French had actually gone back to using HORSES for some of their army transport! Russia with Stalin, had just killed off most of their top military leaders, because Stalin feared them. They were woeful at that time.

With that weakness all around of course Hitler felt encouraged to bully and bluster, and finally, go to war with them!

We couldn't believe it! Neither could most of the people in the UK. They were kicking the dead peace horse, waiting for it to run again and carry us all to a lasting peace.

But that horse was really dead.

Thinking that we'll have little need for a strong foreign policy, and the ability to project military strength today, is just lunacy. There is a LOT of instability in the Middle East. North Korea is a chronic hot spot, as is the recent squabbles with China and Japan over some islands that lie between them.

And then there's Al Qaeda and their several associated groups, that are quite active in Mali, Sinai, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, etc.

With the UK so very weak - NO aircraft carriers for now, and the French being headed by a Socialist, We need to be alert, and not knocking down the number of ships in our Navy.

Couple of points:

The disestablishment of large chunks of the armed forces after a conflict is pretty much the way Britain has always done things. We only stopped passing the annual Mutiny Act (for governing the size, budget and purpose of the army) in 1879.

Cultural unease over large standing armies was only just starting to pass out of the national consciousness by the time of the first world war.

It is standard for Britain to allow herself to become militarily weak during peace time and then have to scrabble around furiously recruiting and training up soldiers when large scale conflict erupts. It's one of the key reasons that Britain often does very badly at the start of a conflict. Not only is a large proportion of the army still green when they begin, but the structural integrity of regiments and battalions has often been shattered by large scale disestablishment and the need to move men around by, for example, combining the remnants of different battalions into a new whole, or using homebased battalions as a recruitment filter for overseas regiments.

Over the course of the conflict they become skilled and experienced and gel into an effective fighting force. Then when the conflict ends numbers are again slashed, and regiments stripped down or removed from active service altogether.

Rinse and repeat :p

Second, whilst Britain is weak now relative to its historic strength (in terms of military and naval reach) it is still the fifth in Global Firepower rankings. Given the size of our land and population, that's still way overpowered.

The lack of aircraft carriers is a problem. For all that I am generally anti-war it grieves me to see our navy so depleted. We don't even build ships anymore. Naval power has been a factor in English and British identify since the 10th century. The closure of the shipyards felt like a part of that was being ripped away.

Back to the disestablishment of regiments though: now that the dust is beginning to settle on our recent military ventures, the government has announced a large scale reorganisation of the army, along with massive budget cuts. Some regiments are being disbanded atogether, others are being absorbed into surviving regiments.

truly there is nothing new under the sun.

[BigV]

Quote:

we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.

Cite.

You said Obama used as a defense in the foreign policy debate that a ship in the Pacific can help with a problem in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean.

I'd like you to provide a citation for this statement, please. Absent a citation I will consider it another one of your fearmongering smears.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

Quote:

Cite.

You said Obama used as a defense in the foreign policy debate that a ship in the Pacific can help with a problem in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean.

I'd like you to provide a citation for this statement, please. Absent a citation I will consider it another one of your fearmongering smears.

Not quite. The idea is that a ship in the Gulf of Persia, can't help with a Naval issue in the Mediterranean Sea, and one in the Mediterranean Sea, can't help with a problem in the Sea of Japan, etc. Yet Obama believes it's OK to have fewer ships.

You can't rescue an oil tanker under attack, but firing long range ship to ship missiles at small boats nearby the tanker, from the Gulf of Persia. See what I mean?

Think about real life issues where the Navy has had to intervene in the last 10 years. How many times could a simple firing of a longer range missile from an advanced Cruiser, have been the solution to the problem? Almost never.

In the foreign policy debate, Romney argued that the decline in the number of ships in the US Navy, resulted in a weakening of our Naval military strength.

Obama then stated in a condescending tone, that we had these ships called Aircraft Carriers, and planes land on them, and the ships today were much more capable than ships in the past, so we have more strength, with fewer ships.

There was more; that's just an off the cuff highlight of that exchange in the debate. You can hear the debate in zillions of places on the net.

What's wrong with Youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tecohezcA78

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

Not quite. The idea is that a ship in the Gulf of Persia, can't help with a Naval issue in the Mediterranean Sea, and one in the Mediterranean Sea, can't help with a problem in the Sea of Japan, etc. Yet Obama believes it's OK to have fewer ships.

You can't rescue an oil tanker under attack, but firing long range ship to ship missiles at small boats nearby the tanker, from the Gulf of Persia. See what I mean?

Think about real life issues where the Navy has had to intervene in the last 10 years. How many times could a simple firing of a longer range missile from an advanced Cruiser, have been the solution to the problem? Almost never.

In the foreign policy debate, Romney argued that the decline in the number of ships in the US Navy, resulted in a weakening of our Naval military strength.

Obama then stated in a condescending tone, that we had these ships called Aircraft Carriers, and planes land on them, and the ships today were much more capable than ships in the past, so we have more strength, with fewer ships.

There was more; that's just an off the cuff highlight of that exchange in the debate. You can hear the debate in zillions of places on the net.

What's wrong with Youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tecohezcA78

I watched the whole debate. What you say Obama said never happened. Your smear is baseless. Obama did not say that a ship in the Pacific can help a ship in the Atlantic as you said:

Originally Posted by Adak

Despite some more capable ships we have now, we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.

You did say that, Obama didn't say that; your statement is merely a smear, a figment of your frightened imagination.

A decline in naval military strength? A decline relative to what? You can not possibly be suggesting it is a decline relative to the naval military strength of our navy in 1916, can you? Romney set those parameters--Obama answered in kind. You must know how important it is to keep units of measure consistent when comparing two quantities. It's not a matter of one person's facts versus another person's facts, it's just the difference between logical statements to address the issues and using non-sequiturs to make up some noise as the run up to your conclusion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think one of our carriers could take out the entire "Great White Fleet" handily.

[BigV]

Since there is no "foreign policy Mitt Romney", I'd like to return to the search for the "real Mitt Romney". I'm reposting this, and a couple more observations and questions.

Originally Posted by BigV

Who is the real Mitt Romney?

We've heard lots of opinions, lots of generalizations, a few details, plenty of contradictions. There are many voices clamoring for our attention, claiming, usually by naked assertion that he's the best. I am trying to understand their reasoning, and one major tool I use to gain understanding is to consider who's doing the talking. And that has been difficult to discern when it comes to the Romney campaign.

It's not just Romney out there saying "Vote for me!", but lots of other people, but they're largely invisible, like Clint Eastwood's foil. Look at all the money being spent for each campaign. More importantly, look at who is spending it. The vast majority of the money being spent in favor of Romney's campaign was collected anonymously. I have serious doubts about why this is a good idea.

If Romney's your guy, enough that you'd spend millions of dollars to help him get elected, why wouldn't you want your name known in that effort? To me, the clearest reason is that you don't want people to associate your name with Romney's. Why not? Why not? Perhaps you're shy. Or maybe you think that voters who look at Romney and wonder who else is supporting him will be turned off by his association with you. For example, I don't think the Koch brothers, just to use an example, have the same priorities as I do for the President. And if they're supporting Romney, then I think Romney's less appealing.

Now let's look at who's spending what.

Ad Spending By Outside Groups, April 10-Oct. 10

Party Affiliation         Amount Spent       Donor Status        Percent
Democratic                $20,032,460        Disclosed           86.6%
Democratic                 $3,101,280        Undisclosed         13.4%
Total Democratic          $23,133,740 		

Republican                $69,112,620        Disclosed           44.4%
Republican                $86,600,860        Undisclosed         55.6%
Total Republican         $155,713,480 		

Source: Kantar Media CMAG

Those undisclosed donors are overwhelmingly Republican, almost thirty times more! Why? What are they hiding? Who are they hiding from? It seems absolutely clear to me that Romney knows who's giving him these many millions, so, his "debt" to them is known. But I don't know to whom he will be beholden. That troubles me. I think much of this money is corporate spending, and despite the fact that I need a job, I have no illusions that "the company" exists for my benefit. What is good for them is only sometimes good for me. This is based on my own personal experience as well as a lifetime of learning from the mistakes of others. Class warfare? You betcha. And this is a stealth attack.

There's so much that is unknown about Romney, so many details missing, and so many contradictory statements out there. It is not possible to know the real Mitt Romney, who is bankrolling him, and what they will want from him as President. You want my vote? You have to give me good information. All I hear from Romney is "Trust me." That's not a fact, it's a line used by people who want something from me. Their secrecy speaks more about them than they wish it did though.

We don't know the real Mitt Romney, and that's just the way he wants it. No thanks.

Crossroads GPS is a major player in the Romney campaign. There's no denying it, despite the fact that their organization

is a so-called social welfare group seeking IRS tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4), which would allow it to keep its donors' names secret. But that law also restricts the group's ability to engage in electoral politics. IRS rules do not specify exactly what percentage these groups can spend on politics. They require only that their primary goal must be "social welfare" and not politics.

Crossroads GPS is headed by Karl Rove, a person whose ideals and methods I have opposed for years. I didn't like him when he ran GWB's life and I don't like him now. As a starting point, if Rove's for it, I'm against it. Look at what kinds of social welfare he's promoting now.



Social welfare? Or political speech? It is clearly a call to political action. We have structures for this, they're called Political Action Committees, PACs. The thing about PACs is that the donors must be recorded and filed so the electorate, we citizens, you and me, can see WHO is saying what. Not so with the Social Welfare organizations. They are not required to reveal their donors. Yet, Karl Rove can use this anonymous money to influence voters. Aren't you curious about who is buying this influence for Romney? I sure am.

I'd like to know to whom Romney will owe a debt of gratitude, or more, should he be elected. It is not a lot of people. Check this out:

In its first 18 months, Crossroads GPS raised $67 million of its total $77 million from as few as 16 rich donors. What it has raised this year, and how much came in large donations, will not be disclosed to the IRS and the public until April 2013.

Wow, only sixteen people made up about 87% of the money! Just these few rich people are trying to get him elected, but trying in secret. What is gonna happen when Romney's elected? Don't you think these people are gonna want a return on their investment? Probably not a bunch of lottery winners in that small group, they're business people, they don't just throw money away, they're *investing* it. Do you really believe they're doing it for the social welfare of the viewer? Lots of philanthropists put their names on their donations. These people are trying to make a difference.

I sincerely doubt the difference they're striving for is the same difference I'm striving for. The concerns of Romney's NFL and NASCAR owning friends are not my concerns. I don't want them calling the shots.

There's so much about Romney that doesn't add up. He is hiding so much, all headlines and no body. No details. No tax returns to show where his treasure is, so will his heart be also, right? I can't decide if he's more Thurston Howell III or Mr Burns. But he's a caricature and a scary one.

[BigV]

Well Adak? What's your position on all the secret money bankrolling Romney?