[–] BoiseNTheHood 2 points 0 points 2 points (+2|-2) ago
[–] flyawayhigh [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
I'm pretty sure I posted both of those Counterpunch articles here at Voat a while back. I love being nonpartisan. You ought to take a look at some of the other articles at that site, and not just those that support your partisan political cause. :)
Anyway, Bernie's war record is nothing like "a warmonger" and better than most everyone else. He came up independent then relied on compromise once he became powerful. As president, where he has the power to be in control of war, he won't be making any. Contrast Obama. Obama came up as a direct result of massive support from the Democratic party and from the TV. Bernie and Obama are very different.
Bernie is more like Pope Francis or Mikhail Gorbachev. When his day comes, he will have a few surprises for us. This is probably why you oppose him so strongly. :)
[–] BoiseNTheHood ago
Bernie is more like... Mikhail Gorbachev.
So he'd be presiding over the decline and collapse of a superpower? Even more reason not to elect him.
[–] Mossberg 2 points 6 points 8 points (+8|-2) ago (edited ago)
Wow, what a great answer! "Iran shouldn't be trusted. We'll snap back the sanctions if Iran missteps. War should be a last resort."
That's an incredibly basic answer in all honesty. War as a last resort is actually most politicians mantras, even in the GOP. It's political science 101 - Jus ad bellum. The right just wanted a "better" deal, They're not complaining that President Obama didn't call in the aircraft carriers, the SEALs, and the Army to conquer the Persians, they're complaining about the deal's contents.
I don't mean to come off as an asshole, but the internet's knees must be sore after praising Senator Sanders for so long.
[–] flyawayhigh [S] 3 points 1 point 4 points (+4|-3) ago
When the policy is "don't negotiate," the only policy is war. And that's what the warmongers want. Nothing short of it. Did you read the 2000 policy document "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? Go check it out.
Once you're done with that, take a very close look at the political events in 2006 and into 2007. See who was pushing for war and who ultimately stopped it.
It's not "don't negotiate" though. At least, not for a vast number of Senators. They just dislike the deal. You can look at the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institute for a general conservative criticism. They aren't saying "Let's nuke Iran!" they're saying "Wow, this deal is shit. Can't we do better?"
[–] OleDixie 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Not fighting wars isn't cowardly. Not fighting wars is STUPID. And what's even more dumb is painting anyone who wants to push involvement in a war as a bloodthirsty warmonger.
That being said, the effects of war with Iran would be incredibly disastrous. I would never trust such an avid Zionist to keep us out of wars in the middle east.
[–] secretsquirrel2 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I'm guessing you've never been to war.
[–] OleDixie ago
Neither has Sanders. He seems quite convinced he's more than qualified to make decisions on the importance and damage of war. And I'll bet you that most members of the armed forces are far more "war-mongering" than Bernie is.
[–] Mossberg ago
No one wants a bloody war. No one wants war, period. However, sometimes it is necessary to further national interests. If we lived in a world of peaceful, toothless states, I think I could get behind the "no wars, ever" crowd. The problem is that's not the case. Iran isn't toothless, they aren't peaceful, and they sure as hell aren't non-interventionist - see the Quds Force for further examples.
There's a very real threat of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. That could start an arms race in the Middle East between them and Saudi Arabia. You don't want two countries which value martyrdom to be in control of devastating devices like that.