How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?

[MACVSOG68]

When Japan then Germany declared war against us, we realized it and responded correctly. We fought to gain unconditional surrender, total victory, occupied and made permanent compliance certain.

Not so yet, regarding Islam's declaration of war against us. We have waged partial war, presuming our half-measures were enough.

Obviously they have not been enough. I've stated before, we should not be squeamish about killing enough civilians, to convince the societies we mean business, and intend to win at any cost.

Unfortunately, we are not in a hot war with a Japan or a Germany today, whose borders are identifiable and whose forces can be as defined and recognized as a Panzer division.  But the enemy of today is just as dangerous, but much more difficult to defeat.  It's analogous to Whack-A-Mole in some respects.  It's well funded, has goals and objectives, and is ruthless.  It's support ebbs and flows within countries and across many borders, within Islamic religious circles and Islamic cultural organizations. 

We have been supporting dictatorships who held the enemy at bay.  We supported insurrections against those same dictators in hopes the enemy would come to like us.  We've worked with allies as well as previous cold war opponents.  We've shoved money out the door like watering a garden.  We've developed the best technology a military can buy.  Yet at best we are stalemated in the war on terror.  With enough vigor we can defeat this current faction, a creation we helped shape.  But the seeds are planted all over the ME, Central Asia and most third world countries...and even here in the US, made up of an amalgam of economic, religious and historical conflicts. 

We had best be prepared to understand that and either fold up our tents and leave the rest of the world to deal with it, or once again take the lead, put new coalitions together, strengthen old ones, and above all be ready to react to the new paradigm, not the old.  And has been said above, wars are won by the offensive team, not the defense. 

And this in not the time for a candidate who's looking at the 1930s vision of "It's none of our business". 

[aligncare]

We had best be prepared to understand that and either fold up our tents and leave the rest of the world to deal with it, or once again take the lead, put new coalitions together, strengthen old ones, and above all be ready to react to the new paradigm, not the old.  And has been said above, wars are won by the offensive team, not the defense. 

Unfortunately, the current administration is ill-suited to take on this challenge. We need new leadership if we ever hope to prevail.

[Lando Lincoln]

If Mitt decides to run, he will need to be very careful and precise with his packaging and branding.  What a cache of material he would have for ads once the time was right!

[massadvj]

We've exhausted the treasury. Our weapons are dull and our soldiers spirits are weighted down by inefficient Generals. Leaner, ruthless chieftains are taking advantage of our weakness.

We're weak because victory was not our objective.

When war is declared, then war must be waged.

Swift, ruthless and merciless war designed to wipe out the enemy and break the spirits of all who support them.

I don't know that Rand Paul's Libertarian ideological center will allow him to make the decisions needed to be made to wage the sort of war that we must wage in order to put this evil down decisively and permanently.

Who among the potential GOP candidates is, in your opinion?

[MACVSOG68]

Unfortunately, the current administration is ill-suited to take on this challenge. We need new leadership if we ever hope to prevail.

Indeed!

[MACVSOG68]

If Mitt decides to run, he will need to be very careful and precise with his packaging and branding.  What a cache of material he would have for ads once the time was right!

I do expect him to understand the mistakes of the past campaigns and adjust accordingly.  If he doesn't, he doesn't deserve the job.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Who among the potential GOP candidates is, in your opinion?

The overwhelming majority of our Federal government (with the exception of the SCOTUS) is made up of self-serving appeasers whose sole purpose in life is staying in power. They are owned by those who supply them with the funds to stay in power.

All those people are slaves to the powers that put them in power, and driven by greed, not duty. There's a significant number of simply abysmally stupid people that keep getting re-elected by abysmally stupid people, and they will act as contrarians to anyone in power not in their party. Truth means very little to those people.

So you can scratch anyone already in DC.

Overall as a nation, we have been so dumbed down and divided that no one will be able to lead the people effectively, at least no one that I see anywhere in the political horizon, because of our disunity.

So, if the question is "who can lead this current Congress and this people into the kind of a war that we're going to have to wage in order to defeat Islamofascism and save our flawed culture?" Then the answer is no one.

If the question however is changed to "who will be able to lead this Congress and this people into the kind of war that we will be forced to wage once ISIS (or any ISIS-like group) begins their military campaign on US soil?" Then the answer is damned near anyone.

Right now (this comes as a complete surprise to me) I think that I will support Rick Perry, just because I think he's the individual most likely to act without giving a s#it about what Congress does or thinks.

Someone like that can wield real power.

Obama taught me that.

[alicewonders]

I'm leaning to Perry too.  I think he has got some balls and I think he is capable of kicking ass when it is appropriate. 

[massadvj]

The overwhelming majority of our Federal government (with the exception of the SCOTUS) is made up of self-serving appeasers whose sole purpose in life is staying in power. They are owned by those who supply them with the funds to stay in power.

All those people are slaves to the powers that put them in power, and driven by greed, not duty. There's a significant number of simply abysmally stupid people that keep getting re-elected by abysmally stupid people, and they will act as contrarians to anyone in power not in their party. Truth means very little to those people.

So you can scratch anyone already in DC.

Overall as a nation, we have been so dumbed down and divided that no one will be able to lead the people effectively, at least no one that I see anywhere in the political horizon, because of our disunity.

So, if the question is "who can lead this current Congress and this people into the kind of a war that we're going to have to wage in order to defeat Islamofascism and save our flawed culture?" Then the answer is no one.

If the question however is changed to "who will be able to lead this Congress and this people into the kind of war that we will be forced to wage once ISIS (or any ISIS-like group) begins their military campaign on US soil?" Then the answer is damned near anyone.

Right now (this comes as a complete surprise to me) I think that I will support Rick Perry, just because I think he's the individual most likely to act without giving a s#it about what Congress does or thinks.

Someone like that can wield real power.

Obama taught me that.

OK.  I supported Perry in the primaries last time, so I share your admiration.  I am likely to stick with Rand Paul based on his almost total alignment with me philosophically, plus his potential to reel in new GOP constituencies, but I certainly would not be disappointed to see Perry win.

Did anyone else see the MTP piece on Rand Paul doing eye surgery in Guatemala today?  Great stuff.

[evadR]

Rick Perry...and I hope he doesn't find a way to step on his ding dong.

I don't see anyone else although I'm sure they'll find a way to force another "e" on us.

[evadR]

OK.  I supported Perry in the primaries last time, so I share your admiration.  I am likely to stick with Rand Paul based on his almost total alignment with me philosophically, plus his potential to reel in new GOP constituencies, but I certainly would not be disappointed to see Perry win.

Did anyone else see the MTP piece on Rand Paul doing eye surgery in Guatemala today?  Great stuff.

Mass..what, in your opinion, is his real position on amnesty and foreign issues?

By real I mean how do you think he will govern, not how will he campaign?

[MACVSOG68]

Mass..what, in your opinion, is his real position on amnesty and foreign issues?

By real I mean how do you think he will govern, not how will he campaign?

One would hope he (Perry) would start by not having to be held to some silly written pledges, leaving him no room to think or react to circumstances.

[Luis Gonzalez]

OK.  I supported Perry in the primaries last time, so I share your admiration.  I am likely to stick with Rand Paul based on his almost total alignment with me philosophically, plus his potential to reel in new GOP constituencies, but I certainly would not be disappointed to see Perry win.

Did anyone else see the MTP piece on Rand Paul doing eye surgery in Guatemala today?  Great stuff.

There's a sea of difference between "support" and "admire".

I support Perry like I would support amputation as a last resort to stop gangrene from spreading.

I've become very much a libertarian over the years, or rather a neolibertarian (imagine Bill Kristol/Charles Krauthammer/Daniel Pipes/Ron and Rand Paul/John Stossel and Henry Clay all morphed into one ideology).

I imagine my America as one where my personal interaction with the Federal government is limited (under ordinary circumstances) to six times per week when my snail mail is delivered, and where I can peacefully and fearlessly sit in my living room watching the US bomb the s#it of some s#ithole Islamofascist country/organization that threatens our existence while doing legal bong hits and glasses of 2011 Garnacha de Fuego with my married gay couple neighbors.

And yes... to come here you need a visa and a job.

To get to a Rand Paul Presidency, we may first need a few Rick Perrys.

[musiclady]

Mass..what, in your opinion, is his real position on amnesty and foreign issues?

By real I mean how do you think he will govern, not how will he campaign?

I second this question.

I'm open to Rand Paul, but I'd like to get some answers from him about his foreign policy in a real, and very dangerous world.

[alicewonders]

OK.  I supported Perry in the primaries last time, so I share your admiration.  I am likely to stick with Rand Paul based on his almost total alignment with me philosophically, plus his potential to reel in new GOP constituencies, but I certainly would not be disappointed to see Perry win.

Did anyone else see the MTP piece on Rand Paul doing eye surgery in Guatemala today?  Great stuff.

To me, a Perry/Paul ticket would be the best!

[Fishrrman]

massadvj asks above (regarding potential candidates for 2016):
[[ Who among the potential GOP candidates is, in your opinion? ]]

Easy, easy answer:
Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Look at how he took on "the enemy" in a blue-ish state like Wisconsin, and came out ahead even after a bitter recall election.

If he can win again in 2014, he's the obvious first choice as far as I'm concerned.

Not one other Republican candidate -- NOT ONE -- has stood up to the abuse and lies over which he has confronted and prevailed.

If anyone harks back to a "Reagan" who who "pull a majority" from a divided nation, he has such qualities.

[DCPatriot]

To me, a Perry/Paul ticket would be the best!

I'm there!   Perry/Paul or Paul/Perry (in order to draw in more voters)

[alicewonders]

"I imagine my America as one where my personal interaction with the Federal government is limited (under ordinary circumstances) to six times per week when my snail mail is delivered, and where I can peacefully and fearlessly sit in my living room watching the US bomb the s#it of some s#ithole Islamofascist country/organization that threatens our existence while doing legal bong hits and glasses of 2011 Garnacha de Fuego with my married gay couple neighbors."

Did you mean to leave out 'while you are cleaning your automatic weapon'?

[musiclady]

To me, a Perry/Paul ticket would be the best!

Anybody here old enough to remember "Perry's pal Paul" from the Perry Como show? (It was Paul Lynde)

(Sorry to interrupt an otherwise serious thread with a bit of TV trivia.  ^-^ )

btw, this sounds like a strong ticket to me!

[massadvj]

Mass..what, in your opinion, is his real position on amnesty and foreign issues?

By real I mean how do you think he will govern, not how will he campaign?

I'm not really sure what to expect of Paul except I believe him to have great integrity and he will first seek peaceful and creative solutions to problems before committing to military intervention.  I don't see him as aligned with either the intelligence establishment, the diplomatic establishment or the military establishment.  That being the case, I would hope he would not over-rely on any particular viewpoint when making decisions.

I personally think there is some validity to the notion that we are at least partly responsible for the mess that is the Middle East.  I am very skeptical that ISIS is not the out-of-control creation of our own intelligence apparatus.  Suddenly, ISIS is the enemy and Iran and Syria are allies?  The guy who beheaded Foley happened to be British?  Doesn't it occur to anyone that the guy may have been British intelligence and then gone native?

I think these are the kinds of questions Rand Paul will be asking, and if we still end up in war I will be more confident that we occupy the moral high ground.

Right now, with the people like Valerie Jarrett running things, I do not think we have the moral authority to engage in war.  ISIS is the enemy of the month and the media is whipping the public into a frenzy, but why?  So that we can help Iran, that is why.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Did you mean to leave out 'while you are cleaning your automatic weapon'?

Yeah.

What Alice said!

[Fishrrman]

mass wrote above:
[[ Suddenly, ISIS is the enemy and Iran and Syria are allies? ]]

(sigh)….

How long will it take for you to come to the realization that (with a VERY FEW exceptions) if they are "muslim", they ARE "the enemy" and not our allies?

The Saudis (in particular) have been our "ally" for decades -- yet they as a nation are one of the richest and most active supporters of islamism and jihad throughout the world. It's no surprise that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis.

In the struggle of The West vs. islam, there aren't any islamic "allies", and there will never be any. There may be some advantageous alignments here and there, but The West can not win -- and is not winning -- the struggle with islam until it understands this.

I guess my view of the world is too stark for modern interpretations !!

[massadvj]

mass wrote above:
[[ Suddenly, ISIS is the enemy and Iran and Syria are allies? ]]
In the struggle of The West vs. islam, there aren't any islamic "allies", and there will never be any. There may be some advantageous alignments here and there, but The West can not win -- and is not winning -- the struggle with islam until it understands this.

I guess my view of the world is too stark for modern interpretations !!

If the war is against Islam, then why did we support ISIS to begin with?  Or don't you think ISIS was funded via western intelligence services together with most of the Sunni world?  You think they have the amount of funds and weaponry they have by accident? 

No.  We helped them, along with most of the Sunni world, and now they have gone rogue. 

I agree with you as far as the Muslim world is concerned.  But the Muslim world is playing us for suckers.  By attacking ISIS we are helping Iran and Syria and, by extension, Russia. 

We might just be better off developing our own energy, erecting a firewall around the USA, and letting Muslims kill Muslims.

I do think the guy who did this beheading needs to be taken out in a very public way.  We also need to defend our allies in the region (such as the Kurds).

This is a quagmire, and the American public isn't being told the half of what is really going on.  As it turns out, we have no idea who our enemy is.  Russia does not have that dilemma.  Russia knows full well that ISIS and the Saudis and the industrialized Sunnis are its enemy.  The USA seems to have no strategic direction in the region.  We help Iran by creating a client state for them, and then we impose sanctions on Iran.  Now we are going to help Iran again by killing off its fiercest enemy.  It's utter stupidity.  The only thing perpetuated is killing, and the only people who benefit are those who are part of the military industrial complex.

It's time to rethink things.  In this day and age, wars should not last decades. 

[katzenjammer]

If the war is against Islam, then why did we support ISIS to begin with?  Or don't you think ISIS was funded via western intelligence services together with most of the Sunni world?  You think they have the amount of funds and weaponry they have by accident? 

No.  We helped them, along with most of the Sunni world, and now they have gone rogue. 

I agree with you as far as the Muslim world is concerned.  But the Muslim world is playing us for suckers.  By attacking ISIS we are helping Iran and Syria and, by extension, Russia. 

We might just be better off developing our own energy, erecting a firewall around the USA, and letting Muslims kill Muslims.

I do think the guy who did this beheading needs to be taken out in a very public way.  We also need to defend our allies in the region (such as the Kurds).

This is a quagmire, and the American public isn't being told the half of what is really going on.  As it turns out, we have no idea who our enemy is.  Russia does not have that dilemma.  Russia knows full well that ISIS and the Saudis and the industrialized Sunnis are its enemy.  The USA seems to have no strategic direction in the region.  We help Iran by creating a client state for them, and then we impose sanctions on Iran.  Now we are going to help Iran again by killing off its fiercest enemy.  It's utter stupidity.  The only thing perpetuated is killing, and the only people who benefit are those who are part of the military industrial complex.

It's time to rethink things.  In this day and age, wars should not last decades.

That's right Victor.  Perpetual low-grade war is the model.  No one should expect any "leader" from any party to get close to sniffing the WH, if he/she would attempt to change this model (at least not until it has run its course).  And yes, the "US" has been funding and propping up these terror and insurgency groups for decades.  People also need to understand that both Foggy Bottom and Langley haven't been working in, nor for, America's interests for decades either.

I think what Fish has been advocating for (of which I am in total agreement), is what Western Civilization *should* be doing, not what we are anywhere close to doing.  In all actuality, we've been steadily moving in the wrong direction on all fronts for decades, I don't expect to see it change in my lifetime.

[massadvj]

massadvj asks above (regarding potential candidates for 2016):
[[ Who among the potential GOP candidates is, in your opinion? ]]

Easy, easy answer:
Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Look at how he took on "the enemy" in a blue-ish state like Wisconsin, and came out ahead even after a bitter recall election.

If he can win again in 2014, he's the obvious first choice as far as I'm concerned.

Not one other Republican candidate -- NOT ONE -- has stood up to the abuse and lies over which he has confronted and prevailed.

If anyone harks back to a "Reagan" who who "pull a majority" from a divided nation, he has such qualities.

I am there as far as Walker is concerned.  Could easily support him.