"Mitt Romney is calling for the West to stop the "insanity" of accepting refugees from the Middle East — particularly young men — and for the United States to wage war on the Islamic State to "eradicate it once and for all."
In a commentary in The Washington Post, the former governor of Massachusetts charges ISIS is "a cancer that metastasized" on President Barack Obama's watch.
"We must wage the war to defeat the enemy, not merely to harass it," Romney writes.
"For over a year, the president has clung to the hope that an air campaign is sufficient. It demonstrably is not. He must call in the best military minds from the United States and NATO, actually listen to what they have to say and finally construct a comprehensive strategy that integrates our effort with the Kurds, Turks, Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians."
But in the meantime, he argues, the flood of refugees from the war-torn Middle East must be stemmed.
"The West must stop the insanity of welcoming hundreds of thousands of people from the Middle East without knowing who exactly they are," he writes. "Women, children and the elderly, perhaps, but not thousands upon thousands of single young men."
The call comes as authorities confirm the holder of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the Paris gunmen in the Friday night attacks in the city was registered as a refugee in several European countries last month.
"Only America can lead this war, and that leadership means being willing to devote whatever resources are required to win — even boots on the ground,"
"We have the best-equipped and most dedicated military for good reason. The president must stop trying to placate his political base by saying what he won't do and tell Americans what he will do. We must do what it takes."
Romney also blasted Obama's pre-strike assertion that the advance of the jihadists had been "contained" has been proven wrong.
"It's time the president stopped hedging and took meaningful steps to defend us and our allies," he writes, adding it's time to "secure the safety of our homeland and preserve our democratic values. Now is the time, not merely to contain the Islamic State, but to eradicate it once and for all."
Romney says the job must begin "by identifying the enemy."
"We will not defeat it if we are afraid to call it by its name," he writes. "These heinous acts of terror are waged by radical Islamists: jihadists. And the Islamic State represents the branch of this ideology that currently poses the greatest threat. Islam is not the enemy, but the enemy lives within Islam. Accordingly, the broader Islamic world will play a critical role in this war."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mitt-r ... z3rh4hpFXN" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MITT
-
2EstablishZion
- captain of 100
- Posts: 337
Re: MITT
O Babylon! Oh Babylon! We bid thee farewell! We're going to the mountains of Ephraim to dwell!
-
Robin Hood
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 13190
- Location: England
Re: MITT
He also appears to be unaware of the fate of the Nephites when they decided to go after the Lamanites in order to finish them once and for all.Ezra wrote:Mitt (hasn't read D&c 98 or understand it) Romney
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: MITT
I believe that Ron Paul has a much better understanding of what is going on and how to deal with it.
"The horrific attacks in Paris on Friday have, predictably, led to much over-reaction and demands that we do more of the exact things that radicalize people and make them want to attack us. The French military wasted no time bombing Syria in retaliation for the attacks, though it is not known where exactly the attackers were from. Thousands of ISIS fighters in Syria are not Syrian, but came to Syria to overthrow the Assad government from a number of foreign countries -- including from France and the US.
"Ironically, the overthrow of Assad has also been the goal of both the US and France since at least 2011.
"Because the US and its allies are essentially on the same side as ISIS and other groups – seeking the overthrow of Assad – many of the weapons they have sent to the more “moderate” factions also seeking Assad’s ouster have ended up in the hands of radicals. Moderate groups have joined more radical factions over and over, taking their US-provided training and weapons with them. Other moderate groups have been captured or killed, their US-provided weapons also going to the radicals. Thus the more radical factions have become better equipped and better trained, while occasionally being attacked by US or allied planes.
"Does anyone not believe this is a recipe for the kind of disaster we have now seen in Paris? The French in particular have been very active in arming even the more radical groups in Syria, as they push for more political influence in the region. Why do they still refuse to believe in the concept of blowback? Is it because the explanation that, “they hate us because we are free,” makes it easier to escalate abroad and crack down at home?
"It may not be popular to say this as emotions run high and calls ring out for more bombing in the Middle East, but there is another way to address the problem. There is an alternative to using more military intervention to address a problem that was caused by military intervention in the first place.
"That solution is to reject the militarists and isolationists. It is to finally reject the policy of using “regime change” to further perceived US and western foreign policy goals, whether in Iraq, Libya, Syria, or elsewhere. It is to reject the foolish idea that we can ship hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons to “moderates” in the Middle East and expect none of them to fall into the hands of radicals.
"More bombs will not solve the problems in the Middle East. But a more promising approach to the Middle East is currently under fire from the isolationists in Washington. The nuclear deal with Iran ends UN sanctions and opens that country to international trade. Just last week the presidents of France and Iran met to discuss a number of trade deals. Other countries have followed. Trade and respect for national sovereignty trumps violence, but Washington still doesn’t seem to get it. Most presidential candidates compete to thump the table loudest against any deal with Iran. They will use this attack to propagandize against approving trade with Iran even though Iran has condemned the attack and is also in the crosshairs of ISIS.
"Here is the alternative: Focus on trade and friendly relations, stop shipping weapons, abandon “regime change” and other manipulations, respect national sovereignty, and maintain a strong defense at home including protecting the borders from those who may seek to do us harm."
I have little hope for an end to the effort to unseat President (or whatever his title is) Assad, who, by the way, was re-elected by a healthy majority a few years ago as President of Syria in a fair and square election (which is more than I can say for recent elections is the United States). I believe the "perceived US and western foreign policy goals" for Syria, as with Iraq and Libya, include the subservience of these nations to the planned global government, or New World Order. And Ron Paul knows this, according to statements he has made in the past.
"The horrific attacks in Paris on Friday have, predictably, led to much over-reaction and demands that we do more of the exact things that radicalize people and make them want to attack us. The French military wasted no time bombing Syria in retaliation for the attacks, though it is not known where exactly the attackers were from. Thousands of ISIS fighters in Syria are not Syrian, but came to Syria to overthrow the Assad government from a number of foreign countries -- including from France and the US.
"Ironically, the overthrow of Assad has also been the goal of both the US and France since at least 2011.
"Because the US and its allies are essentially on the same side as ISIS and other groups – seeking the overthrow of Assad – many of the weapons they have sent to the more “moderate” factions also seeking Assad’s ouster have ended up in the hands of radicals. Moderate groups have joined more radical factions over and over, taking their US-provided training and weapons with them. Other moderate groups have been captured or killed, their US-provided weapons also going to the radicals. Thus the more radical factions have become better equipped and better trained, while occasionally being attacked by US or allied planes.
"Does anyone not believe this is a recipe for the kind of disaster we have now seen in Paris? The French in particular have been very active in arming even the more radical groups in Syria, as they push for more political influence in the region. Why do they still refuse to believe in the concept of blowback? Is it because the explanation that, “they hate us because we are free,” makes it easier to escalate abroad and crack down at home?
"It may not be popular to say this as emotions run high and calls ring out for more bombing in the Middle East, but there is another way to address the problem. There is an alternative to using more military intervention to address a problem that was caused by military intervention in the first place.
"That solution is to reject the militarists and isolationists. It is to finally reject the policy of using “regime change” to further perceived US and western foreign policy goals, whether in Iraq, Libya, Syria, or elsewhere. It is to reject the foolish idea that we can ship hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons to “moderates” in the Middle East and expect none of them to fall into the hands of radicals.
"More bombs will not solve the problems in the Middle East. But a more promising approach to the Middle East is currently under fire from the isolationists in Washington. The nuclear deal with Iran ends UN sanctions and opens that country to international trade. Just last week the presidents of France and Iran met to discuss a number of trade deals. Other countries have followed. Trade and respect for national sovereignty trumps violence, but Washington still doesn’t seem to get it. Most presidential candidates compete to thump the table loudest against any deal with Iran. They will use this attack to propagandize against approving trade with Iran even though Iran has condemned the attack and is also in the crosshairs of ISIS.
"Here is the alternative: Focus on trade and friendly relations, stop shipping weapons, abandon “regime change” and other manipulations, respect national sovereignty, and maintain a strong defense at home including protecting the borders from those who may seek to do us harm."
I have little hope for an end to the effort to unseat President (or whatever his title is) Assad, who, by the way, was re-elected by a healthy majority a few years ago as President of Syria in a fair and square election (which is more than I can say for recent elections is the United States). I believe the "perceived US and western foreign policy goals" for Syria, as with Iraq and Libya, include the subservience of these nations to the planned global government, or New World Order. And Ron Paul knows this, according to statements he has made in the past.
-
2EstablishZion
- captain of 100
- Posts: 337
Re: MITT
We armed and trained the Muhajadeen to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, who then became al-Qaeda who we ended up fighting the weapons and training we provided.
We armed and trained Saddam Hussein, and placed him in power and kept him in power to fight Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Again we ended up fighint against the weapons and training we provided.
We armed and trained ISIS, and now find ourselves facing ISIS as an enemy.
I had read that in modern times the international bankers would support both sides, and I could never understand how people would deal with someone that they knew was also financing their enemies. Now I see the U.S. financing and training their own enemies, sending foreign aid to countries that are our enemies. It's complete and utter insanity, and most of the current candidates support these same policies.
We armed and trained Saddam Hussein, and placed him in power and kept him in power to fight Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Again we ended up fighint against the weapons and training we provided.
We armed and trained ISIS, and now find ourselves facing ISIS as an enemy.
I had read that in modern times the international bankers would support both sides, and I could never understand how people would deal with someone that they knew was also financing their enemies. Now I see the U.S. financing and training their own enemies, sending foreign aid to countries that are our enemies. It's complete and utter insanity, and most of the current candidates support these same policies.
-
Ezra
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4357
- Location: Not telling
Re: MITT
13 And the blood of that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall turn upon their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.2EstablishZion wrote:We armed and trained the Muhajadeen to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, who then became al-Qaeda who we ended up fighting the weapons and training we provided.
We armed and trained Saddam Hussein, and placed him in power and kept him in power to fight Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Again we ended up fighint against the weapons and training we provided.
We armed and trained ISIS, and now find ourselves facing ISIS as an enemy.
I had read that in modern times the international bankers would support both sides, and I could never understand how people would deal with someone that they knew was also financing their enemies. Now I see the U.S. financing and training their own enemies, sending foreign aid to countries that are our enemies. It's complete and utter insanity, and most of the current candidates support these same policies.
If the shoe fits right. And it does according to jfs
Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, and confusion all
over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the president of the United States; it is
not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan
himself.
Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation Vol I
The powers behind the U.S. government is the cause of all the wars since the revolutionary war. Every war.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: MITT
"According to a Suffolk/Boston Globe poll of likely Granite State primary voters, if Romney was added to crowd of GOP presidential hopefuls, he would lead the field with 31 percent of the vote—more than double that of current frontrunner Donald Trump."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
farmerchick
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2172
Re: MITT
We don't want or need Mitt Romney. He had his chance and totally blew it. He had Obama on the run until the Candy Crowley\Benghazi debacle. Mitt didn't stand his ground and wobbled. The republicans except maybe rand paul and Ted Cruz are bought and paid for, and I'm probably being naïve suggesting that. I'm not sure anyone person can fix anything. Even at the local level, it's all about money, OUR money. All the politicians want is More money from each of us. Our government is a behemoth of bureaucracy that scratches the backs of the politicians so they will keep feeding it with our money. Seriously, JEB! profited off the Obama phone entitlement. He and Mexico's billionaire Carlos Slim got in on that action. Check your cell phone bill for the tax collected by the government for that program. I pay around 15.00 per month for the program, I'm a small business. Individuals pay less. Why do we put up with this? Democrats, Republicans, socialists, ect.....They are all the same.........Mitt is just one more dude getting in on the action.....Please don't suggest we vote for any of the GADS.....I'm sick to death of the scams, shams, and scandals. Obama is selling us down the river and not one congressman or senator have stood up to him in a meaningful way on any issue. George Bush did his part. The banking debacle designed to run up property values and unsustainable mortgages so that everyone at the top got a cut from the profit going up and the bale out going down. Dirty dealing all the way around. Obama care costs me about 700.00 a month for 10000.00 deductible that I can't afford to use and its going up in January. Where is all that money going? It's going to the Mitt Romneys at the top who figured out how to work the system to get rich. I hope the middle class who are paying for all this, just revolt and just say no. JEB! conveniently profited and passed on his share of the Obama phone to one of his close relatives before his presidential run,,.,,Awesome huh! America the land of pay offs, favors and crony capitalism.....and no we DON'T WANT MITT!!
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: MITT
Very telling, some of the posts to this thread. Is it any wonder that fraud and corruption is running this country ? Is it any wonder that Mormons have failed in their responsibility to help preserve the US Constitution and the freedoms it was intended to provide.
-
skmo
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4495
Re: MITT
Just a joke. A thread where most everyone here screams epithets at Mitt Romney, it reminded me of the '12 election year. He's not my first choice for President, and honestly, he wouldn't make my top 100 list (mainly because I wouldn't choose anyone who was already a politician) but I certainly think all the name-calling of him being a leading LDG is ridiculous. He seems like a decent leader, a good man, and he certainly would have been a better inhabitant of the WH than the putz-in-chief.Elizabeth wrote:Which post is that?
-
Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: MITT
It's still amazing to me that any politically astute member of the church voted for Mitt over someone like Ron Paul. :ymblushing:
-
farmerchick
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2172
Re: MITT
Let's get this straight.....Fraud from his opponent did not defeat Mitt....No....No...and No...Mitt defeated Mitt. He had the debate in his pocket till he let Obama out maneuver him. I'm sure he had inside info and knew the real story about Benghazi. Mitt backed down, let Obama win......No one stands up to Obama.....The biggest threat to our constitution and way of life since the founding.......The community organizer adept at destroying any and all comers except for ISil or isis or al queda.....The puppeteers are in high places.......Some of us are awake to our awful situation.Elizabeth wrote:Fraud from his opponents was what defeated Mitt Romney.
Why the American people allow fraud and corruption to run their country is beyond my understanding.
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: MITT
Most members of the Church are either not aware of their doctrinal imperative to learn, uphold and abide by the principles of the US Constitution, unaware of that responsibility, and/or choose to ignore the words of the prophets that advised us of that divine mandate.
I have been acquainted with a few LDS members in European countries, especially England and Denmark, who are aware of what the D&C says about the US Constitution, appreciate its principles, and indicated to me that they would support such principles in their own countries if given the opportunity to vote for such candidates and programs.
I have been acquainted with a few LDS members in European countries, especially England and Denmark, who are aware of what the D&C says about the US Constitution, appreciate its principles, and indicated to me that they would support such principles in their own countries if given the opportunity to vote for such candidates and programs.
-
skmo
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4495
Re: MITT
No argument there from me, but Paul wouldn't make my list either, though he really was a clear choice over Romney. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for his son.Col. Flagg wrote:It's still amazing to me that any politically astute member of the church voted for Mitt over someone like Ron Paul. :ymblushing:
