DC Tom Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Sanders voted against the Iraq war authorization that opened pandora's box in the Middle East . That could have saved $trillions and maybe prevented ISIL and the Syria disaster and refugees. Bern baby Bern , I know Hillary will be the nominee Yeah...the Middle East was stable and pacific before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Sanders voted against the Iraq war authorization that opened pandora's box in the Middle East . That could have saved $trillions and maybe prevented ISIL and the Syria disaster and refugees. Bern baby Bern , I know Hillary will be the nominee So he was right regarding that. That alone does not mean any of his ideas would be good for this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Sanders voted against the Iraq war authorization that opened pandora's box in the Middle East . That could have saved $trillions and maybe prevented ISIL and the Syria disaster and refugees. Bern baby Bern , I know Hillary will be the nominee Sanders didn't vote against Iraq because he divined something from the pertinent intelligence that others didn't, or out of some special wisdom that uniquely qualifies him to be President. He voted against the war because he's a pacifist who doesn't believe in going to war, period. As to your "Pandora's box" claptrap, as others have mentioned, the Middle East has been at war with it self pretty much forever. The rational for going to war when and where we did was that the powder keg was going to explode in the near future because of economic conditions and a lack of opportunities for young men, and a growing vein of Islamo-facism that was recruiting them by giving their otherwise empty and wasted lives meaning and purpose, and that by entering that theater, and carving out a western enclave we could a) choose the time table for our entry rather than have it thrust upon us which would give us a strategic upper hand, b) would give us a military foothold to influence the developments in the region, and c) to create a land of opportunity in the region which, over time, would give those young men a purpose by changing the economy and culture of the region, hopefully snuffing out the fire around the powder keg as the long game. The mess of IS, and the associated refugee issue were created by the hasty exit for the theater which created a power vacuum in the region. Had we not left Iraq, none of that would have happened. Edited January 28, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Pelosi: Yeah, that Sanders guy’s tax plan is pretty crazy Who? Us? Raise taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) ALF, on 28 Jan 2016 - 08:20 AM, said: Sanders voted against the Iraq war authorization that opened pandora's box in the Middle East .That could have saved $trillions and maybe prevented ISIL and the Syria disaster and refugees.Bern baby Bern , I know Hillary will be the nominee So he was right regarding that. That alone does not mean any of his ideas would be good for this country. For a Republican to agree invading Iraq was a mistake , you have my real respect Wasting $trillions is never a good idea. I agree Saddam Hussien was evil but his brutal Army kept order in that region, except for the Kurdish who I support. I'am a Independent who could support a statesman who would do what is right for the entire country not just the left or right special interests. Eisenhower and George H Bush were my most admired presidents (and JFK) I think Kasich could also be the next statesman if elected. Edited January 28, 2016 by ALF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 OUCH: WaPo: Bernie Sanders Fiction-Filled Campaign. “Mr. Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He is a politician selling his own brand of fiction to a slice of the country that eagerly wants to buy it. . . . He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.” To be fair, socialists always lie, because if they told the truth nobody would vote for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 "Among high GDP-per-capita nations, universal care coverage is the norm. Only three of the 25 wealthiest -- the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- weren’t listed as having universal health care." http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/sep/01/dan-gecker/dan-gecker-says-us-only-wealth-nation-without-univ/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) "Among high GDP-per-capita nations, universal care coverage is the norm. Only three of the 25 wealthiest -- the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- weren’t listed as having universal health care." http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/sep/01/dan-gecker/dan-gecker-says-us-only-wealth-nation-without-univ/ What's your point? And, why/how does that make it a good idea, or even workable or desirable in a country as large and as non-homogenous as America? Also, can you please respond to my reply to you about the invasion of Iraq? Edited January 28, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 ALF, on 28 Jan 2016 - 08:20 AM, said: For a Republican to agree invading Iraq was a mistake , you have my real respect Huh?? You talkin' to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Huh?? You talkin' to me? The liberal definition of "Republican" is "people who disagree with me," apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 The liberal definition of "Republican" is "people who disagree with me," apparently. I thought my mom was going to cry when she "found out" I was a "Republican". I then proceeded to tell her the conservative values I believe in of course all of which she believed in as well. I was a great family learning moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Huh?? You talkin' to me? I have not followed PPP till now, sorry if I make a wrong assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I have not followed PPP till now, sorry if I make a wrong assumption. No worries. Welcome to the dark side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I have not followed PPP till now, sorry if I make a wrong assumption. I'm just going to get this out of the way now, then: You're an idiot. I'm sure you'll demonstrate why later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Sanders didn't vote against Iraq because he divined something from the pertinent intelligence that others didn't, or out of some special wisdom that uniquely qualifies him to be President. He voted against the war because he's a pacifist who doesn't believe in going to war, period. As to your "Pandora's box" claptrap, as others have mentioned, the Middle East has been at war with it self pretty much forever. The rational for going to war when and where we did was that the powder keg was going to explode in the near future because of economic conditions and a lack of opportunities for young men, and a growing vein of Islamo-facism that was recruiting them by giving their otherwise empty and wasted lives meaning and purpose, and that by entering that theater, and carving out a western enclave we could a) choose the time table for our entry rather than have it thrust upon us which would give us a strategic upper hand, b) would give us a military foothold to influence the developments in the region, and c) to create a land of opportunity in the region which, over time, would give those young men a purpose by changing the economy and culture of the region, hopefully snuffing out the fire around the powder keg as the long game. The mess of IS, and the associated refugee issue were created by the hasty exit for the theater which created a power vacuum in the region. Had we not left Iraq, none of that would have happened. Also, can you please respond to my reply to you about the invasion of Iraq? The U.S. could never stop the extreme hate between Sunni and Shia Muslims , see also Syria and Yemen today. The very brutal Iraq Army kept them apart in Iraq. The U.S. would have to stay in Iraq forever to keep the peace there at a very high cost, can you say high taxes. Our national debt is way too high. ALF, on 28 Jan 2016 - 1:48 PM, said: I have not followed PPP till now, sorry if I make a wrong assumption. I'm just going to get this out of the way now, then: You're an idiot. .. I agree , no argument there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 The U.S. could never stop the extreme hate between Sunni and Shia Muslims , see also Syria and Yemen today. The very brutal Iraq Army kept them apart in Iraq. The U.S. would have to stay in Iraq forever to keep the peace there at a very high cost, can you say high taxes. Our national debt is way too high. Hate gives way to prosperity, which western economies built on democracy creates over time. Regardless, the powder kegs was going to explode, spilling over in to America. When this happened, America would have been thrust, head first, into the regions conflicts anyhow, only under much more strategically vulnerable conditions. By setting up occupational shop in a transforming Iraq, America would have it's foothold. Either way, America would not have had to remain there forever. Over time, given economic change, the region would likely have stabilized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Either way, America would not have had to remain there forever. Yeah eventually the Sun will expand and boil away our oceans leaving us as desolate as Mars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Yeah eventually the Sun will expand and boil away our oceans leaving us as desolate as Mars Please demonstrate that the US military would have had to remain in Iraq forever. Perhaps you believe that Middle Easterners are inherently inferior to Europeans and Asians whose nations we were not required to remain in forever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I'm just going to get this out of the way now, then: You're an idiot. I'm sure you'll demonstrate why later... Later?? http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/183809-new-orleans-to-remove-excremental-rebel-monuments/?p=3858928 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 "Among high GDP-per-capita nations, universal care coverage is the norm. Only three of the 25 wealthiest -- the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- weren’t listed as having universal health care." http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/sep/01/dan-gecker/dan-gecker-says-us-only-wealth-nation-without-univ/ Do I really need to slap down this nonsense argument again? Buddy, I've got more data and fact that proves this whole thing to be a giant lie than you can possibly imagine. Health care is one of my firm's interests, and we know our schit. I don't know that you know that, so rather than dropping the hammer on you now, I'll give you three choices: 1. You can move on 2. You can ask me why the argument is nonsense and I will explain it to you nicely 3. You can persist, and I will crush you. Ask anyone: they've all seen the crushing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts