2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNo! No! No! Hillary anti-war declaration is wrong and it's disgusting!
Hillary supporters are heralding this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110726425
I've been blocked so I'm forced to cry out in anguish here.
This comment makes my skin crawl:
"if you have a declaration of war you better have a budget that backs it up."
I feel compelled to ask, what if the profits outweigh the expenditure?
Then she states:
"I'm not sure that makes sense in fighting a threat that is as diffuse and networked as this threat is," Clinton said.
Not sure? You're on the fence and still trying to figure it out?
So cold and calculating.
Budget should have nothing to do with declaring war!!! What happened to "last resort"?
What have we become?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)You're ok with these statements?
riversedge
(70,381 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Of COURSE, we would need the budget to go to war. Of COURSE, we should never go into a war for the sake of profit. You're not making sense.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)"Of COURSE, we should never go into a war for the sake of profit."
Totally agree. Iraq had nothing to do with oil. It was all about who attacked us.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)profited. I do think the Bush administration entered the war for the purpose of certain private citizens profiting. Of COURSE, I do not think they should have done that and that they should be prosecuted for doing so. I do not think all the congress people who voted to give authorization if the need arose, voted that way to profit the private citizens who profited.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)The FIRST gulf war was about oil -- as Senator Lugar said at a SFRC hearing in 2009 - citing it as a Bush application of the Carter doctrine.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"I've been blocked so I'm forced to cry out in anguish here."
Love your line and good work Hillary. See, something good for both of us.
riversedge
(70,381 posts)quickesst
(6,283 posts)That kind of reminds me of Stephen Colbert's character on his old show reacting to the logic of the Democratic Party. Good times.
stonecutter357
(12,698 posts)good.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)I feel we should not be at war for the longest period in our history.
Why do you think that is?
stonecutter357
(12,698 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)stonecutter357
(12,698 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)economy? We no longer make a lot of things but we do make weapons of war. And we hire US companies to carry on those wars. Plus the bases in our own country are often a part of a states economy. The Stock Market is full of companies that are dependent on war.
I remember when my daughter's family lived in Germany and the military was trying to make personnel live on base instead of in the German economy. The military was an active part of Germany's economy. That is what is happening here. Our military is our economy. It makes the rich richer and plays the corporate game for our outsourced companies.
Until presidents find some other way to strengthen our economy they will continue to use the MIC.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Peacekeepers as we used to consider ourselves. But Cheney has sold us on continual war and we are doing just that.
I'm surprised by how many people think we are doing just fine.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)clear that if you did not have a stack in the game then you probably did not care. And that became even more clear after the draft was abolished and we started our never ending wars.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)has also changed their mind on many issues because of "new information".
tecelote
(5,122 posts)I'd love to hear that she evolved to the point of saying "End these wars for good".
We've been in the longest war in US history. What a legacy we are leaving.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)They benefit from conflict and chaos.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)of those wars. Instead they let the American people imagine that going to war is essentially free, which it isn't. I kind of think that this is a terribly limiting comment; we should be considering more than just the budgetary hit but also the cost in lives in our troops as well as the cost in lives and destruction that we will inevitably inflict on whoever we invade. But I do agree that at the very least supporters of wars should be required to tell us what the cost of these elective wars will be.
Bryant
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Especially, "we should be considering more than just the budgetary hit but also the cost in lives in our troops as well as the cost in lives and destruction that we will inevitably inflict on whoever we invade."
Being a Democrat used to mean that you care about this but so many just seem to think it's just fine as long as we consider the cost.
No. War is wrong and everyone on this board should be pushing to end the wars.
Hey, Cheney won. The evil genius got us into war and we are still fighting.
Nitram
(22,932 posts)Disgusting, anguish, makes my skin crawl, cold and calculating? You need to get out into the real world and gain a little perspective, because you've obviously lost yours.
artislife
(9,497 posts)especially the ones in the last week, you would cringe at your post.
Veteran's Day has a great effect on people who have lost loved ones to war. And this country has killed, maimed and thrown out with the trash so many of our fellow citizens.
Let alone all the deaths by those we bombed, killed and starved out.
Nitram
(22,932 posts)Perhaps Tecelote should avoid political discussions while he is grieving.
Are you sure you have a heart?
That is one of the most stunning posts I have read.
And that is not a complimentary response.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)That post you replied to was just.... mind-boggling
Nitram
(22,932 posts)I know everyone grieves in their own way, but this kind of nasty invective does no one any good, least of all Tecelote.
artislife
(9,497 posts)This is not the first election that has stirred up some inconvenient "emotions". This what the political season has done since our nation was birthed.
And yes, read your replies. Venom.Vile
Nitram
(22,932 posts)I am grieving, too, but I'm not going to use that as an excuse to be venomously vile in the vein that Tecelote has chosen to pursue. The only venomous words in my posts were a direct quote of the disturbing adjectives Tecelote's used to describe Clinton (disgusting, anguish, makes my skin crawl, cold and calculating).
artislife
(9,497 posts)Nitram
(22,932 posts)I guess your grieving must be superior to mine. How nice for you.
artislife
(9,497 posts)But my empathy certainly is higher.
I don't have any for your "grief" because if it were real you would understand that it is nothing to shout down.
Nitram
(22,932 posts)I frankly have no idea what you are talking about Art.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Did you?
Nitram
(22,932 posts)Did you even read the post we're commenting on? And if you think the phrase is over the top, then you agree with me!
artislife
(9,497 posts)This thread is days old...time to move on.
Nitram
(22,932 posts)What a novel way to cut bait and run.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Look back at this sub thread.
And read what a supposedly grieving person is focused on. You on "winning" against someone on the internet. Me, at defending someone who really knows how to grieve for personal loss-3 people from what they wrote.
You are devoid of empathy or even basic kindness.
And you are fully happy to reveal it and revel in your shallowness of character. Good luck in life. The true you has been on display here.
Nitram
(22,932 posts)Perhaps you should stick to what you know instead of psychoanalyzing people you've never met. If you think its okay to use purported grief as an excuse for unsupported ad hominem attacks on Democratic candidates, perhaps you should look within your own psyche before casting aspersions on others. I'm not sure where you got this holier-than-thou attitude, Art. anyways, see you in the next thread.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)I didn't think that I would get such vitriol here in this forum. I thought many agreed that we need to stop the killing.
It is very personal and really bothers me because we could make it a larger issue in this election and possible change course.
To those who think this is over the top, wherever you live, take a walk downtown and look at our veterans living on the streets. Think about the meaning of collateral damage. We're still waging the longest war in our history. It's just not OK.
I'm not against the military at all. I just know that our priorities are way off base and we could do so much better.
Thanks again for the support.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Makes me wonder if they are here to stir the pot.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)IF BS becomes president, he will also be a wartime president. The wars will continue until Congress quits funding them.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)We live in a difficult and dangerous world, and there are no easy or magical solutions. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I will defend this nation, its people, and Americas vital strategic interests, but I will do it responsibly. America must defend freedom at home and abroad, but we must seek diplomatic solutions before resorting to military action. While force must always be an option, war must be a last resort, not the first option." - Bernie Sanders
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Killing under a Sanders' presidency makes people no less dead or warring more palatable. It sounds as though you fully understand that war is not off the table for Sanders. I expect that he would readily engage.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)You are right here - "Killing under a Sanders' presidency makes people no less dead or warring more palatable."
Less war does equal less killing. You can not deny Hillary is more hawkish. We need to change directions.
I thought Obama was going to end Afghanistan but it's still going.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Hillary to do is to thoroughly evaluate what occurs and act judiciously, as has President Obama. Warring is not something I like, having lived in a wars zone once myself. That being said, there are events occurring on many fronts which need to be evaluated and over which any leader would have no control, including in a Sanders presidency.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Was a thoughtful and judicious action, I take it. Just trying to establish some sort of baseline.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)of Bernie. It will just make me much more careful about who I sent to congress.
MineralMan
(146,341 posts)when Congress declared war? You do know that only Congress can declare war, right?
There has not been a Declaration of War since 1942. The last one was against Rumania, of all places.
Over 70 years ago, you see. We don't do War Declarations any longer.
Wars today are done very differently.
Nitram
(22,932 posts)Fighting a country requires a declaration of war. We've been fighting insurgencies, terrorists and multiple groups that will be killing and blowing people up whether or not the US is involved. Obama has given negotiation a decent chance before every military action he's taken. I believe Clinton would do the same.
MineralMan
(146,341 posts)Those aren't countries? First I've heard.
Declarations of War are obsolete. They've been obsolete since 1942.
Nitram
(22,932 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)And many of those people are Democrats. For as long as I have been alive, that's the way we do it. We're always involved in some kind of war. Many people don't trust a president who refuses to get involved in any conflict, preferably against some small, defenseless nation. It's kind of who we are.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)and with Congress refusing to assert their Constitutionally authorized power, I do not see why it is disgusting.
Should Sanders be elected, he will be leading this same intractable fight.
President Obama called for an Authorization to use force against ISIS. Congress told him no...because they believed the Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq was much stronger and gave him all the power he needed.
Obama ISIS fight request sent to Congress
After Korea and Vietnam, The War Powers Act of 1973 changed the way we wage war. Congress ceded part of their unique powers to the President, and effectively made a full declaration of war unnecessary.
S.J.Res. 23 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force was used in Afghanistan. defined that war.
The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 expanded and extended the previous resolution in Afghanistan.
When the President needs more authorization than the Constitution and the War Powers Act provide, which is a great deal of power, an AUMF is sought.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)WASHINGTON International rivals would be mistaken to assume he wouldnt be prepared to use military force if thats what circumstances required, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said in an interview that aired on Sunday.
The Vermont senator says the United States should have the strongest military in the world. The U.S. should be prepared to act when it or its allies are threatened or in response to genocide.
Nitram
(22,932 posts)...in defense of the country. The question is when is the use of force appropriate, and how does one define "in defense of the country."
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)arise.
The US of America is a warlike nation.
We elect warriors as Presidents.
Nitram
(22,932 posts)Obama was a warrior? Neither had military experience, and neither was inclined towards particularly bellicose talk.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Yes, we elect warriors. not pacifists.
Nitram
(22,932 posts)In my book, a warrior is someone trained to fight in a war. There's a whole spectrum between pacifism and war-mongering, although seeing the issue in black and white does make it easier to argue some positions.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The Constitution makes them warriors.
Some have been a bit more reluctant, none of them have been pacifists.
Sanders actually admits he is ready to take the nation to war. I expect, that as with Clinton's statement of intent, he will pursue war as last act of diplomacy.
Certainly, his statement that the armed forces should be used to stop genocide would give us a glimpse of a portion of his "war diplomacy."
Nitram
(22,932 posts)Realizing that the safety of the entire country is constitutionally in your hands is an enormous burden for any single person.