Chickenhawk Romney's hilarious OP ED in Chicago Tribune

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Leftwingers want to wait till were attacked to build a military capable of responding in kind.

The native Americans had a similar philosophy.

Idiots

Mainland US has not been invaded in 200 years

So ******* what. I hope glass jawed pussies never run anything beyond their own check books. Funny thing is most of you can't even handle that task properly.

 

[Warrior102]

He is our Commander in Chief little boy

So were Nixon and Clinton a-hole.

 

[rdean]

Romney has no guts and no glory.

And you served when/where, assbrain?

Headquarters Battery, 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery, 8th Infantry Division, Baumholder, Germany

82C - Forward Observer

S2 - Military Intelligence

But I'm not sure what that has to do with Mitt Romney being a ChickenHawk. The guy's a total *****. He needed to get 5 guys to hold down a single shy, gay kid so he could "cut his hair"? I know a gay guy who cuts hair. Thought it weird that Mitt does to.

Did any of you right wingers do that? Get 5 guys to hold down a single kid so you could "do something to him"? And then he lied about it. 6 guys remembered but Mitt forgot? He forgot? What a *****. Can't take any responsibility. Course, the Republican Party is famous for avoiding responsibility.

Still don't understand what military duty has with Mitt being a ChickenHawk.

6 on one. What a *****.

 

[rightwinger]

Leftwingers want to wait till were attacked to build a military capable of responding in kind.

The native Americans had a similar philosophy.

Idiots

Mainland US has not been invaded in 200 years

So ******* what. I hope glass jawed pussies never run anything beyond their own check books. Funny thing is most of you can't even handle that task properly.

So the ******* US is not capable of being invaded. We are safe.....have been for 200 years

We do need to be the worlds policeman on the taxpayers dime

 

[rightwinger]

He is our Commander in Chief little boy

So were Nixon and Clinton a-hole.

Clinton was a fine Commander in Chief...it was Bush who couldn't wait to pull the trigger

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Mainland US has not been invaded in 200 years

So ******* what. I hope glass jawed pussies never run anything beyond their own check books. Funny thing is most of you can't even handle that task properly.

So the ******* US is not capable of being invaded. We are safe.....have been for 200 years

We do need to be the worlds policeman on the taxpayers dime

I never said we were under threat of being invaded numbnuts. Stop trying to twist an argument to win it.

Point being that every entity be them a govt or group of peoples in history have fallen for one reason. Lack of being prepared.

Threats against our country are real no matter how far you stick your head in the sand.

 

[rightwinger]

So ******* what. I hope glass jawed pussies never run anything beyond their own check books. Funny thing is most of you can't even handle that task properly.

So the ******* US is not capable of being invaded. We are safe.....have been for 200 years

We do need to be the worlds policeman on the taxpayers dime

I never said we were under threat of being invaded numbnuts. Stop trying to twist an argument to win it.

Point being that every entity be them a govt or group of peoples in history have fallen for one reason. Lack of being prepared.

Threats against our country are real no matter how far you stick your head in the sand.

No problem with being prepared..

Do we need to be prepared to the extent we are more powerful than the next ten nations combined?

How about if we were more powerful than the next eight?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So the ******* US is not capable of being invaded. We are safe.....have been for 200 years

We do need to be the worlds policeman on the taxpayers dime

I never said we were under threat of being invaded numbnuts. Stop trying to twist an argument to win it.

Point being that every entity be them a govt or group of peoples in history have fallen for one reason. Lack of being prepared.

Threats against our country are real no matter how far you stick your head in the sand.

No problem with being prepared..

Do we need to be prepared to the extent we are more powerful than the next ten nations combined?

How about if we were more powerful than the next eight?

I staked out my position and I believe its a smart one. Cut all the bullshit spending first THEN LET'S TALK.

 

[rdean]

I never said we were under threat of being invaded numbnuts. Stop trying to twist an argument to win it.

Point being that every entity be them a govt or group of peoples in history have fallen for one reason. Lack of being prepared.

Threats against our country are real no matter how far you stick your head in the sand.

No problem with being prepared..

Do we need to be prepared to the extent we are more powerful than the next ten nations combined?

How about if we were more powerful than the next eight?

I staked out my position and I believe its a smart one. Cut all the bullshit spending first THEN LET'S TALK.

When you ask a right winger to name "bullshit spending", they come up with "talking points", like:
Stuff we don't need
Things
Other stuff

It's because they just hear the words, but don't bother to find out relevance. But the latest one has me worried. That Jesus is on the side of those that feel, "If you feed the poor, they'll breed".

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Herp derp

 

[Harry Dresden]

Does anyone really want Mitt Romney answering the phone in the White House at 3 am?

what if its a 5 AM?......or if its a wrong number?......should he still answer?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I've worked for the DoD for over 30 years and know what we buy and why. I came in after Viet Nam and worked through the end of the cold war up to today. The threat just isn't there anymore to justify our military expenditures. We have a military bigger than the next ten countries combined and eight of those ten are allies

We just can't afford the military strength we now have and can't justify it based on current threat and opponents military capability. All of our forces need to have reasonable missions reestablished and the money saved needs to go to pay down our debt

your a government worker RW?...welcome to the club.....duck....here come the tomatoes....

 

[rightwinger]

I've worked for the DoD for over 30 years and know what we buy and why. I came in after Viet Nam and worked through the end of the cold war up to today. The threat just isn't there anymore to justify our military expenditures. We have a military bigger than the next ten countries combined and eight of those ten are allies

We just can't afford the military strength we now have and can't justify it based on current threat and opponents military capability. All of our forces need to have reasonable missions reestablished and the money saved needs to go to pay down our debt

your a government worker RW?...welcome to the club.....duck....here come the tomatoes....

Worse

Retired GW ....now an overpaid consultant

 

[Sallow]

It's not just about having been in the military.

Obama has made the difficult decisions. He got rid of a brutal dictator in Libya without the cost of a single American life. He has al Qaeda on the run. He has NATO following his lead. He isn't screaming for more and more military (so he can give contracts to his friends).

Worst of all, he doesn't have 5 sons of military age who he says are already serving the country by helping him get elected president.

Romney has no guts and no glory.

Obama has both. Even though Republicans say he has none of one and try to take credit for the other. But then they've become a really dirty party. In it for the power and not for the country.

you live in some sort of Obama fantasy
sheeesh

Don't forget Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize.........oh and more people have died in Afghanistan under Obama's watch, the MSM doesn't report that.

Now let's talk about those drones and how many innocent civilians they take out, unless that doesn't matter.

Obama has nothing, he needs to be gone!!

Is the New York Times, part of the MSM?

Because they report any deaths of soldiers the day after they occur.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

It depends completely on what you want your foreign policy to look like. From the end of World War II, the United States by virtue of the size of it's military WAS and IS the leader of the free world. You have to make a decision on what type and the extent of your involvement in situations.

For example, there is North Korea. What are you going to do? If you shut down the bases, bring the troops home, then what? North Korea has a one million man army. They WILL invade South Korea if we are not there, they say it every year when they have their May Day parades. The state of war still exists and the mandate that was passed by the UN still is in effect. Everytime the Chinese bring it up in the Security Council to kill it, we veto it. If you disengage, then the Korean War will have been in vain and you condemn the South Koreans to being over run by the North. If you stay engaged, then you require that you have the equipment and the bases that will allow you to be engaged. You can have all the SEALS that you want, but I got news for you, if you don't have a mechanized division to oppose an invasion, then you are pissing in the wind. That means air support and naval support as well. Korea is half way around the world. A single division opposing a million man army will last about 5 days at the most (if it stays conventional). You want to tell those 30,000 soldiers and airmen in Korea that they are NOT worth reinforcements if the North comes across the border? I'd rather you bring them all home.

What are you going to do about Eastern Europe and the Baltic States? Putin doesn't like the fact that the Poles and the Czechs are becoming part of NATO. He especially doesn't like the fact that Latvia and Estonia are becoming over friendly with the west. Add to that the fact that the Poles and the Czechs WANT the defensive missle batteries that the US wants to put there, and you've really sent a shiver up his spine. That makes his medium-range nukes all but paper weights. He doesn't like that. Makes his position at the negotiating table weaker.

And then there's the mideast. Iran is such a nut case and there's no telling what these butt boys will do in the next year or two. 20% of OUR oil goes through the strait of Hormuz. You going to just abdicate the right of ships to pass safely through it? And if Iran does shut it down, who's going to stop them if we don't have the capability?

You don't want to spend the money on a large military, but you don't want to be limited to burning the lights or playing the TV for just 4 hours a day because we have no fuel to fire the turbines. The UN is a joke and the US is the butt of every resolution passed by these idiots. They've sent a 'delegation' to Oklahoma now to talk with the Indians about what happened two centuries ago!?!?!?!? That's productive. I don't know about anyone else but I don't like being dictated to by a bunch of third-world shit hole countries. You want to hate us, fine. But there is a line you don't cross.

Course, I'm not into being told what to do anyway... it's that free American thing.

 

[rightwinger]

It depends completely on what you want your foreign policy to look like. From the end of World War II, the United States by virtue of the size of it's military WAS and IS the leader of the free world. You have to make a decision on what type and the extent of your involvement in situations.

For example, there is North Korea. What are you going to do? If you shut down the bases, bring the troops home, then what? North Korea has a one million man army. They WILL invade South Korea if we are not there, they say it every year when they have their May Day parades. The state of war still exists and the mandate that was passed by the UN still is in effect. Everytime the Chinese bring it up in the Security Council to kill it, we veto it. If you disengage, then the Korean War will have been in vain and you condemn the South Koreans to being over run by the North. If you stay engaged, then you require that you have the equipment and the bases that will allow you to be engaged. You can have all the SEALS that you want, but I got news for you, if you don't have a mechanized division to oppose an invasion, then you are pissing in the wind. That means air support and naval support as well. Korea is half way around the world. A single division opposing a million man army will last about 5 days at the most (if it stays conventional). You want to tell those 30,000 soldiers and airmen in Korea that they are NOT worth reinforcements if the North comes across the border? I'd rather you bring them all home.

What are you going to do about Eastern Europe and the Baltic States? Putin doesn't like the fact that the Poles and the Czechs are becoming part of NATO. He especially doesn't like the fact that Latvia and Estonia are becoming over friendly with the west. Add to that the fact that the Poles and the Czechs WANT the defensive missle batteries that the US wants to put there, and you've really sent a shiver up his spine. That makes his medium-range nukes all but paper weights. He doesn't like that. Makes his position at the negotiating table weaker.

And then there's the mideast. Iran is such a nut case and there's no telling what these butt boys will do in the next year or two. 20% of OUR oil goes through the strait of Hormuz. You going to just abdicate the right of ships to pass safely through it? And if Iran does shut it down, who's going to stop them if we don't have the capability?

You don't want to spend the money on a large military, but you don't want to be limited to burning the lights or playing the TV for just 4 hours a day because we have no fuel to fire the turbines. The UN is a joke and the US is the butt of every resolution passed by these idiots. They've sent a 'delegation' to Oklahoma now to talk with the Indians about what happened two centuries ago!?!?!?!? That's productive. I don't know about anyone else but I don't like being dictated to by a bunch of third-world shit hole countries. You want to hate us, fine. But there is a line you don't cross.

Course, I'm not into being told what to do anyway... it's that free American thing.

The North Korean million man army is a paper tiger. They can barely afford to feed them, let alone sustain a million man invasion force. South Korea is one of the richest nations in Asia. They also have the most modern weaponry, tactics, intelligence and US backing. South Korea, by itself has the seventh largest military force, North Korea is twenty second (http://www.globalfirepower.com/) Any invasion from the north would quickly collapse

Russia is not the USSR of old. Even the vaunted Soviet Army turned out to be a shell of an Army, poorly maintained, poorly trained with miserable morale. The current Russian army has no where the strength of the old Soviet force. They want to saber rattle with Poland or the Baltic States? Let them contend with modern NATO forces and let Germany and France bear the bulk of the workload. It is high time that Europe be responsible for its own defense and own sphere of influence

Iran is also saber rattling. Once again, let NATO take the lead. Europe has more to lose than the US

This does not say that the US dismantle its military and go home. The US needs to get out of the worlds policeman role and allow wealthy nations like South Korea, Japan, Germany, France and England put up the military and monetary support in their own spheres of influence.The US can provide military support in airpower and naval support while letting allies put actual boots on the ground

 

[rdean]

It depends completely on what you want your foreign policy to look like. From the end of World War II, the United States by virtue of the size of it's military WAS and IS the leader of the free world. You have to make a decision on what type and the extent of your involvement in situations.

For example, there is North Korea. What are you going to do? If you shut down the bases, bring the troops home, then what? North Korea has a one million man army. They WILL invade South Korea if we are not there, they say it every year when they have their May Day parades. The state of war still exists and the mandate that was passed by the UN still is in effect. Everytime the Chinese bring it up in the Security Council to kill it, we veto it. If you disengage, then the Korean War will have been in vain and you condemn the South Koreans to being over run by the North. If you stay engaged, then you require that you have the equipment and the bases that will allow you to be engaged. You can have all the SEALS that you want, but I got news for you, if you don't have a mechanized division to oppose an invasion, then you are pissing in the wind. That means air support and naval support as well. Korea is half way around the world. A single division opposing a million man army will last about 5 days at the most (if it stays conventional). You want to tell those 30,000 soldiers and airmen in Korea that they are NOT worth reinforcements if the North comes across the border? I'd rather you bring them all home.

What are you going to do about Eastern Europe and the Baltic States? Putin doesn't like the fact that the Poles and the Czechs are becoming part of NATO. He especially doesn't like the fact that Latvia and Estonia are becoming over friendly with the west. Add to that the fact that the Poles and the Czechs WANT the defensive missle batteries that the US wants to put there, and you've really sent a shiver up his spine. That makes his medium-range nukes all but paper weights. He doesn't like that. Makes his position at the negotiating table weaker.

And then there's the mideast. Iran is such a nut case and there's no telling what these butt boys will do in the next year or two. 20% of OUR oil goes through the strait of Hormuz. You going to just abdicate the right of ships to pass safely through it? And if Iran does shut it down, who's going to stop them if we don't have the capability?

You don't want to spend the money on a large military, but you don't want to be limited to burning the lights or playing the TV for just 4 hours a day because we have no fuel to fire the turbines. The UN is a joke and the US is the butt of every resolution passed by these idiots. They've sent a 'delegation' to Oklahoma now to talk with the Indians about what happened two centuries ago!?!?!?!? That's productive. I don't know about anyone else but I don't like being dictated to by a bunch of third-world shit hole countries. You want to hate us, fine. But there is a line you don't cross.

Course, I'm not into being told what to do anyway... it's that free American thing.

The North Korean million man army is a paper tiger. They can barely afford to feed them, let alone sustain a million man invasion force. South Korea is one of the richest nations in Asia. They also have the most modern weaponry, tactics, intelligence and US backing. South Korea, by itself has the seventh largest military force, North Korea is twenty second (Global Firepower - 2012 World Military Strength Ranking) Any invasion from the north would quickly collapse

Russia is not the USSR of old. Even the vaunted Soviet Army turned out to be a shell of an Army, poorly maintained, poorly trained with miserable morale. The current Russian army has no where the strength of the old Soviet force. They want to saber rattle with Poland or the Baltic States? Let them contend with modern NATO forces and let Germany and France bear the bulk of the workload. It is high time that Europe be responsible for its own defense and own sphere of influence

Iran is also saber rattling. Once again, let NATO take the lead. Europe has more to lose than the US

This does not say that the US dismantle its military and go home. The US needs to get out of the worlds policeman role and allow wealthy nations like South Korea, Japan, Germany, France and England put up the military and monetary support in their own spheres of influence.The US can provide military support in airpower and naval support while letting allies put actual boots on the ground

The biggest reason Republicans like the military are all the contracts. Simply another way they squeeze money out of the country. Look at the money Republicans made in Iraq.

 

[GoneBezerk]

You're a ******* idiot.

How do you elude the men in white coats?

Oh, Romney is smart enough to let the Generals and his SECDEF run the military affairs, not stand in front of them like Obamination taking credit for "personally" shooting UBL.

Chickenhawk?

When/where did you and Obama serve, asswipe?

It's not just about having been in the military.

Obama has made the difficult decisions. He got rid of a brutal dictator in Libya without the cost of a single American life. He has al Qaeda on the run. He has NATO following his lead. He isn't screaming for more and more military (so he can give contracts to his friends).

Worst of all, he doesn't have 5 sons of military age who he says are already serving the country by helping him get elected president.

Romney has no guts and no glory.

Obama has both. Even though Republicans say he has none of one and try to take credit for the other. But then they've become a really dirty party. In it for the power and not for the country.

 

[rdean]

You're a ******* idiot.

How do you elude the men in white coats?

Oh, Romney is smart enough to let the Generals and his SECDEF run the military affairs, not stand in front of them like Obamination taking credit for "personally" shooting UBL.

Chickenhawk?

When/where did you and Obama serve, asswipe?

It's not just about having been in the military.

Obama has made the difficult decisions. He got rid of a brutal dictator in Libya without the cost of a single American life. He has al Qaeda on the run. He has NATO following his lead. He isn't screaming for more and more military (so he can give contracts to his friends).

Worst of all, he doesn't have 5 sons of military age who he says are already serving the country by helping him get elected president.

Romney has no guts and no glory.

Obama has both. Even though Republicans say he has none of one and try to take credit for the other. But then they've become a really dirty party. In it for the power and not for the country.

Dear Turd,
You are a shithead. Learn something. Here, let me help:

Def of commander in chief 

noun, plural commanders in chief.
1.
Also, Commander in Chief . the supreme commander of the armed forces of a nation or, sometimes, of several allied nations: The president is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air force.

commander in chief definition

The role of the United States president as highest ranking officer in the armed forces. The Constitution provides this power, but, through the system of checks and balances, gives Congress the authority to declare war. During periods of war, presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, George H. W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, and George W. Bush have taken active roles as commander in chief.

-----------------------------------------------

And you say Mitt Romney must "outsource"? Fool.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The biggest reason Republicans like the military are all the contracts. Simply another way they squeeze money out of the country. Look at the money Republicans made in Iraq.

so Dean are you saying that Democrats dont make money off these Military Contracts?.....that these contracts dont provide good paying jobs for thousands of Democrats?......Democrats who like all these Contracts.......please say yes so many of us can have a good laugh....