Mitt Romney should be the next President of the United States (continued)

"The difference, however, between legislative experience and executive experience is huge. Ron Paul learned how to pick out the good ideas from the bad ones. In that respect, he understands what may be good for the economy. His lack of executive experience however is what I feel makes him less qualified to revive our economy. Ron Paul has never had to manage an economy. He has only helped decide how it should be managed. Romney however, not only has helped decide how an economy should be managed, but he has manged one. He knows what to expect. He knows how the economy changes and reacts to certain stimuli. Romney has hands-on experience that Ron Paul just doesnt have." - Ron Paul maintains that a president has no place managing an economy, because he advocates a free market. Romney, McCain, Clinton, Obama, etc all offer change, but in the end they just want to tinker with the current system, which has landed this country in a recession. We need real change, and we're not going to get it from the very methods which landed us in this predicament in the first place. "I will give you that Romney is not the most experienced candidate when it comes to military, but Ron Paul is no Eisenhower either. His only military experience is that a flight surgeon. That hardly resembles that of a field commander. Being entangled with the military myself, all I can say about Ron Paul's experience is that he learned how to take orders, not how to give them. He never had to command a battle, or lead troops into a conflict. He is no more qualified to command our military than Romney. The only jump Ron Paul has on Romney militarily speaking is that Ron Paul could surgically operate on wounded soldiers. If thats the case than I give the trophy to Romney who has at least commanded the Massachussetts State Gaurd..." - What I can say about Ron Paul's experience is that he operated on wounded soldiers during a foreign conflict, some of which didn't make it. He's seen the horrors of war first hand; enough to make him think twice before sending thousands of troops into a foreign conflict to die needlessly. Mitt Romney has no such experience. "I will give you that the 9/11 attacks were executed by Saudi thugs, but thats not the only group we are fighting now. We have the whole of radical Jihadism writhing with hatred. Now, if one terrorist group was pissed enough to attack us before we agitated radical islam, how hard would it be to believe that all of these terrorist groups would strike now? Im not talking about 9/11s either. Im talking about biological warfare, cyber-hacking such as firesales, and violent riots from domestic supporters. This will follow us home on way or another, whether we are fist-fighting Osama Bin Laden or texting "stfu" to his cell phone." - If you read the 9/11 Commission Report, and what it says about blowback, you'll realize that extremists are not trying to come over here to kill us just because we're free and prosperous. We've now killed over 1 million Iraqis, built bases on their holy land, put military dictators into power and then imposed sanctions which starved hundreds of thousands of people over the course of a decade, etc. They view us as crusaders because we're occupying their lands. Those people just want us gone. If we bring our military back home to our country and spend trillions on infrastructure and defending our borders instead of funding our foreign empire, we would be much safer because the extremists will loose the incentive to maintain the blowback, and our military would be here defending us. " Its obvious that the United States as screwed up both in the distant past and within the last decade. That doesnt mean that we need to keep up the trend. The worst possible outcome we could have in this war is to have walked out leaving Iraq with less stability than it had before, and leaving it to an inevitable civil war that will cost the lives of millions of people. We would be dooming all of the middle-east to decades of incredible violence even greater than what they are feeling now. Worst of all...that would come back to haunt us. If we leave the job unfinished now, we will just be back to finish it later." - Maintaining our presence in Iraq is keeping up the trend. It was a mistake to go into Iraq, and we're only perpetuating the mistake by lingering. Now that we've passed the mark of over 1 million Iraqis killed, it doesn't make sense to say that if we stay, that we'll prevent millions from being killed. I'd say one way or another there's going to be an ongoing war in Iraq, and regardless of when we leave, the Iraqis left alive will fight over whatever's left. It is a fallacy to believe that the US can go anywhere in the Middle East and kill millions of people in order to get them to conform to the "democracy" that we are pushing on them. The only thing we're going to accomplish is producing more instability in the region, and more blowback, which further endangers our country.