Are American military personnel safer with Obama or Romney?

[Vattel]

Here's one fact that doesn't by itself answer this question, but seems to me to be worth considering: In the last 24 years we have had 12 years with a Democratic president and 12 years with a Republican president. The Republicans initiated five military conflicts (Panama, Gulf War/Operation Provide Comfort, Somalia, Afghanistan/Al Qaeda, and Iraq) that thus far have resulted in 6,969 American military war deaths. The Democrats initiated two military conflicts (Bosnia/NATO Air Campaign Yugoslavia and Libya) that resulted in 32 American military war deaths.

Statistics taken from: http://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp

[Demeter]

1. No

And as long as the US continues its attempt to be an empire, or rather, the army for hire of Corporations, none of its citizens are safe anywhere, anytime.

[Vattel]

7. I agree that we are unsafe with either choice, but I think we are much less unsafe with Obama.

[Nikia]

2. It really concerns me that Romney wants to increase defense spending

And that he is antagonizing Russia by calling them our number 1 enemy.
He obviously wants more war. Obviously that is bad for our troops, many of who have had multiple deployments. It is bad for us all.

[Vattel]

3. Not to mention his bellicose rhetoric with respect to Iran.

I am worried too.

[pinboy3niner]

4. Not to mention his mostly neocon foreign policy advisors

.... Of Romney's forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, "Romney's likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected." On some key issues, like Iran, Romney and his team are to the right of Bush. Romney's embrace of the neoconservative cause -- even if done cynically to woo the right -- could turn into a policy nightmare if he becomes president.

If we take the candidate at his word, a Romney presidency would move toward war against Iran; closely align Washington with the Israeli right; leave troops in Afghanistan at least until 2014 and refuse to negotiate with the Taliban; reset the Obama administration's "reset" with Russia; and pursue a Reagan-like military buildup at home. The Washington Monthly dubbed Romney's foreign policy vision the "more enemies, fewer friends" doctrine, which is chillingly reminiscent of the world Obama inherited from Bush.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

[Victor_c3]

6. I start shaking even thinking about more war

Romney and his draft dodging is bad enough. Then to say to a group of Vietnman veterans that he somehow felt envious because he didn't have the opportunity to experience the "glory" of combat is unexcusable. I remember very vividly G.W. mentioned that he felt similar envy for Soldiers that were getting ready to deploy with the 82nd Airborne Division.

Statements and misconceptions that there is actually a sense of glory to be had in combat is extremely upsetting to me, not to mention dangerous to our country. I can't speak for all combat veterans, but I know I certainly didn't feel any sense of patriotism or glory recovering the dead and wounded after firefight. And I certainly don't feel any of those proud feelings now as I waddle through life as a broken veteran with a slew of wonderful PTSD issues and as a shadow of the person I was before the war in Iraq. The emotions I feel are more on the order of shame and guilt.

(please, don't feel obligated to respond to this. I'm not looking for sympathy or words of encouragement.)

[modem77]

5. Republicans go out of their way to piss off the world so I would say Romney would make it less safe.