Mitt Romney - War Hawk?

Sitting here having my Saturday morning coffee I began to consider why I was against Mitt Romney as our President. I realized I didn't really know much about him other than his LDS (Mormon) belief that LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people are a sub-class not to be tolerated which alone is enough to convince me that he is a bigoted, hateful person not deserving my support.

But I thought okay, I can deal with that if the other 90% of his beliefs and ideals made some sort of sense as the LGBT community and their supporters, which grow every day, won't let the progress over the last few years be undermined so quickly.

Then I came upon a show stopper. He is a war hawk and proudly displays so on his campaign website ( Romney says "It is only American power—conceived in the broadest terms—that can provide the foundation for an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies.". How can this be interpreted in any other way than a massive spending program? The only prosperity this will ensure is for the military industrial complex.

Further he says "Toward that end, the United States should maintain and expand its naval presence in the Western Pacific." as he sees China, one of our largest trading partners, as a deep military threat to the United States. Rattling sabers at China in an aggressive manner certainly isn't going to get a positive reaction from them. I can just see the Chinese government looking at our military expansion close to them and thinking "Oh my the US military is so big! I guess we better close our military before we get hurt!". Somehow I don't think so.

Let me go back to the beginning for a second. Romney further states "Any serious U.S. policy toward China must confront the fact that China’s regime continues to deny its people basic political freedoms and human rights. A nation that represses its own people cannot be a trusted partner in an international system based on economic and political freedom." yet seems to have a personal interest in denying some people basic human rights.

Okay, back to the military aggression.  "Mitt will also pursue robust military and counter-proliferation cooperation with our allies and others in the Pacific region." So basically his aim is to provoke a fight by forcing an untenable situation for the North Korean government causing them to take radical action. It is already understood that they have no intention of quietly closing shop.

Build and expand seem to be Romney's plan of action when it comes to the military. When speaking of Latin America his website comments "Mitt will build on separate existing anti-drug and counterterrorism initiatives to form a unified Hemispheric Joint Task Force on Crime and Terrorism.".

I could continue, but I suggest you do your own further research on his foreign policies. For the most part his solutions seem to involve guns, bombs, and loss of human life. Many of them American soldiers and other service members. The only people to benefit from these policies are the military contractors who will see their pockets lined with taxpayer money and debt.

This, of course, isn't an endorsement of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Barack Obama which have their own decidedly negative sides. Nor is it an endorsement of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or any other Libertarian because I haven't decided yet. But if I was a Republican and able to vote in the Republican Presidential Primary I'd rather see Ron Paul than any of the other candidates win than this war hawk or any candidate wishing to take an aggressive, provocative military position.