Is it safe to assume Romney will occupy Iran and Syria if elected?

mercury14

Pragmatic Metaphysician
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Posts
22,158
Not only does Romney want to cancel the current post-Iraq military draw-down, he wants to add another 100,000 troops. For comparison's sake the US added 88,000 troops to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. So a commander-in-chief Romney would have us ready to conquer about four countries at once.

Is this the correct way to read his policy?
 
Has Romney actually said anything about what he would do to/with/about Iran or Syria?
 
sorta like we were told if we elected NIGGER, they would all love us, right, NIGGERPOONZANDI?:D
 
Are you saying that we currently don't have troops in Iran?



Not only does Romney want to cancel the current post-Iraq military draw-down, he wants to add another 100,000 troops. For comparison's sake the US added 88,000 troops to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. So a commander-in-chief Romney would have us ready to conquer about four countries at once.

Is this the correct way to read his policy?
 
Are you saying that we currently don't have troops in Iran?

:confused: We (the U.S.) currently don't have troops in Iran, and never have. You'd be sure to hear about it if there were any, it would be world-war-level news. We have not even had any diplomatic officials in Iran since the 1979-81 Hostage Crisis.
 
Has Romney actually said anything about what he would do to/with/about Iran or Syria?

Nope, not that I know of.

Nor have I heard his plan on energy.

As for my plan, full speed ahead on energy production.

Close the Strait of Hormuz. Fuck Iran and Syria.........:)
 
:confused: We (the U.S.) currently don't have troops in Iran, and never have. You'd be sure to hear about it if there were any, it would be world-war-level news. We have not even had any diplomatic officials in Iran since the 1979-81 Hostage Crisis.

We didn't have anyone in Cambodia either. :rolleyes:
Of course we have people in Iran. Nuclear scientists don't blow themselves up.
 
Well speaking of that, thank God our military was built up during the Bush years and not dismantled like it was during the Carter years. Remember that nightmare operation in Iran?

Now before you go all Bush ballistic, oh never mind



:confused: We (the U.S.) currently don't have troops in Iran, and never have. You'd be sure to hear about it if there were any, it would be world-war-level news. We have not even had any diplomatic officials in Iran since the Hostage Crisis.
 
:confused: We (the U.S.) currently don't have troops in Iran, and never have. You'd be sure to hear about it if there were any, it would be world-war-level news. We have not even had any diplomatic officials in Iran since the 1979-81 Hostage Crisis.

You realize you're talking to a Jen alt, right?

And she also heard that Venezuela is 30% controlled by a rebel army. I'm sure she's seen the US military in Iran....
 
Clearly you have issues and it sounds like you are not able to cope with anyone to doesn't agree with your madness. Guess people were right about some people in GB being unstable.

I hope in time you find peace and happiness



You realize you're talking to a Jen alt, right?

And she also heard that Venezuela is 30% controlled by a rebel army. I'm sure she's seen the US military in Iran....
 
Israeli assassins blow them up better than we ever could.

Maybe they do. Maybe they get help. Maybe they ask a friend for a favor.
No matter what happened, it's probably a safe bet that we have people there and have had them there for a long time. We're not ones to let our enemies just go about their business.
 
I would assume that spies/assassins don't actually count as boots on the ground. When we talk about having people in the country we're talking regular soldiers. If we're expanding that definition to mean anybody who's loyal to us I'd be willing to bet we have at least a few guys in Canada and the UK just in case.
 
The decision would be made only after careful deliberation and estimation of proven oil reserves. No sense in throwing away good military lives if there's no oil, amiright?
 
The decision would be made only after careful deliberation and estimation of proven oil reserves. No sense in throwing away good military lives if there's no oil, amiright?

Well, Syria ain't got much.

Syria has produced heavy-grade oil from fields located in the northeast since the late 1960s. In the early 1980s, light-grade, low-sulphur oil was discovered near Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria. Syria's rate of oil production has been decreasing steadily, from a peak close to 600,000 barrels per day (95,000 m3/d) (bpd) in 1995 down to approximately 425,000 bbl/d (67,600 m3/d) in 2005. Experts generally agree that Syria will become a net importer of petroleum not later than 2012.
 
hey if romney wants 100,000 young US kids out in the front lines maybe he and his extended family should lead the way.

or are the mormons pacifists - i cant remember.

why is it always easier to send someone elses kids to war
why is there money for guns etc but none for schools, hospitals and good things
why is it always easier to hate than love


let the politians fight it out and leave all us good folk in peace
otherwise there is just gonna be more false flag terrorism to
justify more mayhem and destruction
either way the innocent pay!
 
Back
Top