No! No! No! Hillary anti-war declaration is wrong and it's disgusting!

[tecelote]

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]

1. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, good call Hillary.

[tecelote]

2. You are why we are always at war.

You're ok with these statements?

[riversedge]

3. She is not on the fence. Also read the entire article please

[GoneFishin]

4. Whatever. Check back with her after the next breeze.

[prayin4rain]

5. A budget and a profit are completely unrelated.

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]

7. You don't think we profit from these wars?

"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]

9. The United States didn't profit, IMO. Some select contractors

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]

35. Iraq did not attack us, Osama Bin Laden did

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]

6. Great line!!!!!

"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]

10. Nice that all are happy..

[quickesst]

8. " I've been blocked so I'm forced to cry out in anguish here."

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]

11. I've been blocked

good.

[tecelote]

12. In most cases I agree. By blocking people like me, you only hear what you want to hear.

I feel we should not be at war for the longest period in our history.

Why do you think that is?

[stonecutter357]

19. can you see why you where blocked now 😁

[tecelote]

39. For having an opinion. I know.

[stonecutter357]

42. Your opinion is not needed in the Hillary Clinton (Group) .....

[jwirr]

33. How about the fact that the MIC is a huge part of our present

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]

36. I'm not against a large military. All for it.

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]

37. When we were protesting the Vietnam war it became very

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]

41. Sad but so true.

[Dawgs]

13. Agree, I will never trust any candidate that has been pro-war in the past, and..

has also changed their mind on many issues because of "new information".

[tecelote]

14. Since Hillary is known to "evolve" on issues, why do her supporters care so little?

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]

58. Their interests are not in ending conflict

They benefit from conflict and chaos.

[el_bryanto]

15. I think the problem is that when Republicans sell wars they are not required to disclose the cost

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]

16. I agree with everything you say.

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]

17. Jeeze, Tecelote, calm down.

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]

20. If you ever bothered to read Tecolote's 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]

30. Grief is no excuse to lash out during a discussion of politics.

Perhaps Tecelote should avoid political discussions while he is grieving.

[artislife]

40. Oh my

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]

43. Oh my gosh

That post you replied to was just.... mind-boggling

[Nitram]

44. Suggesting that arguing about politics is not the best way to grieve means I don't have a heart?

I know everyone grieves in their own way, but this kind of nasty invective does no one any good, least of all Tecelote.

[artislife]

46. Again...really?

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]

48. Yes, really.

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]

50. I don't believe you.

[Nitram]

51. Nice to know we have someone who is omniscient and a perfect judge of character, Art.

I guess your grieving must be superior to mine. How nice for you.

[artislife]

59. I am not grieving

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]

60. Is a polite request that others not shout considered shouting if they happen to be grieving?

I frankly have no idea what you are talking about Art.

[artislife]

61. "skin crawl" I read your words

Did you?

[Nitram]

62. "Skin crawl" is a quote from Tecelote's original post, Art. Wake up!

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]

63. Get a life. A meaningful one.

This thread is days old...time to move on.

[Nitram]

64. Lol. Can't answer that last one, can you?

What a novel way to cut bait and run.

[artislife]

65. Yes, you used his/her words againt him/her

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]

66. Yadda, yadda yadda. Devoid of empathy and even basic kindness?

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]

38. Thank you!

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]

47. The poster is still defending their posts

Makes me wonder if they are here to stir the pot.

[Skidmore]

18. Guess what..

IF BS becomes president, he will also be a wartime president. The wars will continue until Congress quits funding them.

[tecelote]

21. I hope to a lesser extent.

“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 America’s 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]

22. At what point does waging war have "a lesser extent."

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]

23. I hope you are wrong about him.

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]

24. What I trust

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]

29. So Libya

Was a thoughtful and judicious action, I take it. Just trying to establish some sort of baseline.

[jwirr]

34. And to me that is not a fact that will not make me a supporter

of Bernie. It will just make me much more careful about who I sent to congress.

[MineralMan]

25. Do you even know when the last time was

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]

31. The wars we've been fighting have not been against countries.

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]

32. North Korea? North Vietnam? Iraq?

Those aren't countries? First I've heard.

Declarations of War are obsolete. They've been obsolete since 1942.

[Nitram]

45. Point well taken. nt

[HassleCat]

26. Many people like an aggressive foreign policy

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]

27. Considering it is just a discussion about what resolution empowers the use of force,

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]

28. Bernie Sanders: U.S. should be prepared to use military force

Bernie Sanders: U.S. should be prepared to use military force
WASHINGTON — International rivals would be mistaken to assume he wouldn’t be prepared to use military force if that’s 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]

49. No one can be elected president if they are unwilling to contemplate the use of force...

...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]

52. People, however, should be aware that there is no pacifist choice, and not be surprised when wars

arise.

The US of America is a warlike nation.
We elect warriors as Presidents.

[Nitram]

53. Bill Clinton was a warrior?

Obama was a warrior? Neither had military experience, and neither was inclined towards particularly bellicose talk.

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. Neither had any problem sending soldiers into combat.

Yes, we elect warriors. not pacifists.

[Nitram]

55. You can't divide everybody into warriors and pacifists.

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]

56. I can with Presidents. The Job requires them to be Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces

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]

57. With that I will agree.

Realizing that the safety of the entire country is constitutionally in your hands is an enormous burden for any single person.