Romney: Obama Wants U.S. To Have Capacity For One Military Conflict At A Time

[highplainsdem]

Source: TPM

Mitt Romney, campaigning in Fairfax, Virginia, said Thursday that President Obama wants to limit the U.S. military's capacity so it can only engage in one conflict at a time. Criticizing the automatic defense spending cuts looming at the end of the year, which passed as part of the bipartisan debt-limit deal, Romney said he will "restore our military commitment and keep America the strongest military in the world."

"This president's done something I find hard to understand. Ever since FDR, we've had capacity to be engaged in two conflicts at once," Romney said. "He's saying, 'No, we're going to cut that back to one conflict.'"

-snip-

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-obama-wants-us-to-have-capacity-for

---

Delusional again.

It's painfully obvious that Romney finds almost everything "hard to understand."

[ProgressoDem]

1. We have the capacity to be engaged in four conflicts at one time.

What we don't have the capacity to do is be fully mobilized at all times, and creating an environment where we end up creating multiple conflicts at once.

[goclark]

33. Did Mittwit say 4 conflicts at a time?

If so, not to worry he will change that 10 times to 3 at a time and on and on and on

[barbtries]

2. did the president ever say that?

can't we just move away from WAR?! wtf.

[McCamy Taylor]

3. In other words "Romney promises middle class at least one more war."

This is going to win him a lot of votes, I am sure.

[demwing]

24. No shit, thats EXACTLY what he's saying

More war for America, none of this weak socialist "1 War" bullshit.

And how will we pay for these many, many wars? Tax cuts for bazillionaires, of course.

[Blue_Tires]

25. The military contractors are fully erect after hearing that...

So he has their votes, at least...

[Renew Deal]

4. Romney is just making stuff up again.

Why did he pick Ryan if Ryan voted for it?

[McCamy Taylor]

7. I think his Neo-Con "adviser" is a mole for Brother Jeb.

Either someone in his campaign is giving him some really bum advice so that he will lose and 2016 will be a "Republican" year for Jeb Bush. Or, he is making this stuff up himself in which case he is a fool.

[BlueMTexpat]

9. LOL, it's true that the initials for his principal advisor are "J.B."

but they stand for "John Bolton."

I don't believe that even Jeb Bush, awful as he is, is a John Bolton fan.

[landolfi]

5. Has anyone reminded Mitt

that his running mate voted for it? Mitt has a gift for picking the wrong fights.

[Renew Deal]

6. Romney: "More conflicts"

Most of them are in his mind.

[Iliyah]

8. So what the fuck are you saying, Mittens huh?

We should be in more than several conflicts around the world, wherein, our children, not yours nor your grandchildren and your rich cronies' children and grandchildren are sitting around sipping vodka martinis?

EFF YOU AND YOUR FUCKED-UP GOP PARTY!

[Amonester]

12. Robme wants to duplicate (or triplicate, or quadruplate, or...) IRAQ

He wants to reap the profits for himself and Ann's horse.

[thelordofhell]

10. Shitt Onmey is pissed he can't send more kids to die

Fuck you Shitt!!

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Huh?

WTF is he even talking about?

[JoePhilly]

14. If we don't have two wars going at all times, we look weak!

Dumbass.

[Angry Dragon]

15. Someone should ask Willard if he is willing to have some of his sons

fight and die for this country .......... or if working for god and campaigning for Dad is the same??


More wars make you a better country .........

[Javaman]

16. it's also painfully obvious that mittens is clearly out of his league.

he's trying so hard to play grown up and only comes off as looking even more like an asshole.

[Vincardog]

17. Hey Mittens, when your kids sign up, we might listen to on defense. nt

[liberal N proud]

18. With Romney there would be no diplomacy

He would drop bombs at the first sign of trouble.



IF you think the world hates the US now, imagine what it would be like with Romney.

[treestar]

19. Is that some sort of goal for Rmoney?

You just know the damn fool would get us into another war. Aren't people sick of that?

[heaven05]

21. yes

yes I am. But unless there is a huge paradigm shift, I fear we will war against each other til the end of time. Especially if rethugs and profit driven corporations are in charge. Military-Industrial Complex. Very powerful and getting more powerful everyday.

[cyclezealot]

20. And without justified cause. 1 More war than the American people favor.

At this time.. And Romney is lousy at x'pla'nin. stuff...

[sakabatou]

22. Lemme get my clue-by-four...

[bamacrat]

23. Really. Can't we be ok with no conflict?

Besides our military is bigger than the next 10 combined, I think we are good.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. Another Romney lie.

The U.S. has not changed its military structure and size. The cuts were forced by congress so they would feel compelled to kill sacred cows and come to a deal.

If they really go through, then the U.S. will be required to change the structure of the military.

Stupid, stupid, stupid lies, and even more stupid people who believe them.

[Smilo]

27. Let's see Mitt

In 2011 the global distribution of military expenditure by %age was -

USA - 41%
Net 10 countries combined - 21.3%
China 9.2%
Russia 4.1%

And you want more money for the MIC? You are a warmonger and liar - a dangerous combination.



Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

[polichick]

28. Apparently Rmoney hasn't figured out that he's looking like an ass.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

29. More desperation Mittens?

You Republicans are becoming caricatures of yourself.

[JBoy]

30. Romney campaign wants Romney to have capacity for only one foot in mouth at a time.

[JRLeft]

31. Romney wants a war with Iran. Robbedme wants to continue the PNAC doctrine of colonizing the middle

east.

[GreenTea]

32. No Mitt He wants NO unnecessary military conflicts!

Unlike imperialistic republicans who want "never ending war" because it's good for weapons makers and hundreds of republican led CEO contractors who make billions off our tax dollars ....

Romney like bush before him love wars for corporate profits - Fuck the peasant soldiers dying for the rich and their corporations...republicans nor CE O's care workers are replaceable....and killing a bunch of people of color men women & children again who cares....there's profits to be made and a US economy & treasury to loot - so there's no money left for social needs that all the tax paying working people paid for....the rich don't pay taxes nor their corporations they just hide it in off-shore accounts.

Show us your tax returns Mitt What are you hiding?

[IggleDoer]

34. Fight one war, hold on another ...

... was the DoD philosophy since Bush the Smarter scaled back the militaryas the "Peace Dividend."

[Nikia]

35. At best Romney's increased military spending will increase the defecit

which he claims that he doesn't want. It will be his version of stimulating the economy with government spending while saving face with conservatives who don't like government spending except for national defense.
At worst, Romney's thirst for conflict will lead to WWIII with the U.S. seen as the evil aggressor and end up with the US losing after many casualties. If the world isn't completely destroyed anyway, the US military will be forcibly reduced and the US will never be allowed to be a "super power" again.

[ieoeja]

36. We only had such a military when FDR died because we were still fighting WW-II!

We had a large military between WW-II and Korea for the occupations and to help the world restore order in the aftermath.

Even then we did not have a large enough military to engage in a conflict outside Europe when Korea broke out. The USMC barely had one full division. They had to take Marines from embassy duty to flesh out the Marines that led the break out of Pusan then tried the end run at Inchon.

And the sole reason justifyng a peace time military after that was the Cold War. Cold War is over. We need to very slowly disband.

[Brigid]

37. Does Mitty even hear himself?

Constant warfare is to be taken for granted? Jesus Mary and Joseph!

[happyslug]

38. WHAT has't Romeny read of Augustus most famous rule???

Augustus, the man the set up the "Roman Peace" had a policy of only fighting one war at a time, it was to costly to more. His successors followed that policy until the 4rd century, when Rome ended up fighting the Goths raiding from what is now Germany, the Persians from what is now Iraq. This lead to a huge increase in the size of the Army, which lead to huge increase in taxes, which in turn lead to two massive revolts (which almost lead to the fall of the Roman Empire). What came out of the 3rd century was a shadow of the Roman Empire of Augustus, and till the Arab invasion of the 7th century the Empire never did come up with a solution (And in the 7th Century, the Empire turned Greek, the mercenary army was replaced by an army that served in exchange for ownership of land, i.e. medieval Feudalism, and the old ruling elites were replaced by people who understood that a Nation's army must be one and the same with the Nation's people, i.e. you serve in the army because you were a citizen, not because you were paid to fight).

Just a comment, if you want to duplicate Rome at its height, you only plan to fight one war at a time. It is to EXPENSIVE to do otherwise UNLESS you rely on the draft.

[Liberalynn]

39. Mittens and the Pukes

just want never ending multiple wars. They thrive on constant death and destruction. They must really worship Ares God of War!

[oldsarge54]

40. Boy, Mitt got that Wrong

Not until Roosevelt's THIRD term did we have military worth mentioning. The draft then survived by 1 vote. Two regional conflicts, Mitt? That is why we had a Germany First strategy. We couldn't fight two major conflicts at one time. Under Reagan, we had a force level suitable for one major war and a holding action in another theater. After the USSR folded, we dropped to two regional conflicts, one holding one active. Which is one reason we are still in Afghanistan is that is was reduced to being the holding action when Bush got us into that second useless war.

Mitt, first of all, it is time to rethink what we need in a war. I'd personally would prefer a small, professional and well equipped military than an elephant designed for the northern plains of Europe.

Mitt, I'm not calling you a liar, however, if you love firing people so much, start with the researchers and writers of your statements. If you are not stupid, they are making you look stupid.