brainpushups said:Would you argue that the Gulf War was a success?
I think that Bernie's opposition to armed conflict and his continued support for veterans at home seems like it should rank him high on the list of presidential candidates supported by military families.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-bernie-sanders-fought-for-our-veterans-119708.html#.VdIoylNVhHw
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/flashback-republicans-block-va-health-care-funds
Czcibor said:From military perspective? Total. From political? Mostly
Czcibor said:I'm not sure whether you see a quite nasty consequence of US effectively dropping its allies. (because electing guy that opposes Gulf War of 1991 would send such signal to all players, even if it is not the intention) I mean the result would be:
a) quite a few countries would be overrun by some rouge states (think about fate of Ukraine or Taiwan)
b) a lot more, would do the only thing to guarantee its independence - build (or buy?) a bundle of nuclear warheads with means of delivery.
Honestly, you always can expect greater political objective. Choose whatever war you like, and I'd show you that actually it wasn't won, because... (example: WW2 - half of Europe under communist occupation, allied colonial powers on verge on collapse)brainpushups said:It would be hard to argue that the Gulf War was a failure from the standpoint of showcasing military might. However, at least according to this author's opinion:
"Carl von Clausewitz famously defined war as "an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." Saddam’s subsequent behavior- – his defiance of the United Nations, 1993 attempt to assassinate former President Bush, and his 1994 plan to re-invade Kuwait — makes it clear that the Bush administration failed in this most basic of strategic tasks. In ending the war unilaterally before Saddam had been chastened, the Bush administration condemned the United States to a long-term presence in the Gulf in an effort to contain Iraq. This presence, and the sanctions imposed on Iraq due to Saddam’s recalcitrance, in the end served as a rallying cry for jihadists such as Osama Bin Ladenagainst the United States and its friends in the region."
If in case of:I doubt his stance on the Gulf War would have such an effect on our relationship with our military allies. Furthermore, Sanders voting record clearly shows that he is not opposed to military action. I don't know enough about his reasons for voting one way or the other on each circumstance, but, at least with his more recent statements his policy, in part, seems to be:
1) Let other countries pull their share of the weight so that the US is less of a world police force (for example, in the Middle East)
2) Don't let money get in the way of supporting veterans health care. (see post 20)
Czcibor said:Honestly, you always can expect greater political objective. Choose whatever war you like, and I'd show you that actually it wasn't won, because... (example: WW2 - half of Europe under communist occupation, allied colonial powers on verge on collapse)
Czcibor said:If in case of:
-clear casus belli
AND
-relatively easily beatable enemy
he votes against, then his allies should worry, don't you think? They may face less clear casus belli (like Russian hybrid war) and a better armed power, that has a possibility to retaliate.
Czcibor said:Concerning pulling their share, may we discuss what you mean on example of my country (Poland)? Buying a few extra tanks or SAMs would indeed increase a bit defensive capabilities of my country but in case of effective deterioration of US guarantees would not mean much. The only thing that would be a game changer and indeed would mostly end our reliance on the US would be a nuclear program.
Not specially, the US were bound to Saudis from somewhere round 1950s.brainpushups said:I don't dispute this, but I think that the author makes a valid point about how the political failure of the Gulf War set up a necessity for US involvement in the region for the decades that followed.
Kuwait was invaded in August 1990, while this guy was still trying to talk Hussein into reason in January 1991. It's very nice of him that he let his allies being occupied in order to keep high moral ground. Just it looks a bit different, when you are the occupied one, then you'd rather expect immediate military reaction.I don't think I agree. In his address to the House in 1991 he vied for a more diplomatic approach. I don't think that Sanders would hang an ally out to dry if military action was required. I do think that he would be more likely to attempt to exhaust other avenues of resolution before sending in the tanks than other more hawkish types.
Interesting idea of making west Europe more involved. In theory I agree, just don't see how to make it work. Thus, if left into our devices, I'd think about my country going nuclear, as the only workable alternative. (also expect a few more countries reaching the same conclusion) Keep in mind that from here the calculation look much different - hybrid war with Russia presents direct threat, while nuclear proliferation is for us a purely hypothetical one. (the only country in region that could seriously poses a threat is already nuke armed, so a few more armed actually shift a balance of terror into a favourable direction)I suppose my opinion is that it seems like the US has frequently played too much of a role in regional conflicts. I'm not suggesting that military aid be cut off, but that other countries in regions where conflict is occurring take up more of a role. In the case of the Middle East the US involvement could be balanced by countries like, say, Saudi Arabia. In Eastern Europe could that role be filled by other European allies? I'm not convinced that nuclear proliferation is the best step toward a more secure political landscape...
Astronuc said:Bernie blasts NYT Mag reporter's hair question
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-blasts-nyt-mag-reporters-hair-question-126934490446.html
Evo said:He's against GMO,
Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is someone that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such a person in either case.brainpushups said:I think, according to forum rules, you need to provide a source. Yes, he wants GMO food labeled, but I am not sure that Bernie is anti-GMO.
Evo said:Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO.
WASHINGTON, May 22 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would let Vermont and other states require clear labels on any food or beverage containing ingredients that have been genetically modified.
“All over this country, people are becoming more conscious about the foods they are eating and the foods they are serving to their kids and this is certainly true for genetically engineered foods,” Sanders said. “I believe that when a mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the right to know what she is feeding her child.”
The Vermont House on May 10 voted 99-42 for legislation calling for labeling food products that contain genetically modified organisms. Opponents raised concerns that the state could be sued by bio-technology or food industries. Sanders’ proposal would make it clear that states have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced using genetically modified organisms or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.
“Vermont and other states must be allowed to label GMO foods,” Sanders said. “My provision would protect states from threatened lawsuits.”
Sanders’ measure also would require the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.
Sixty-four countries around the world already require the labeling of genetically modified foods, including all of the European Union, Russia, Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand. In the United States, labels must list more than 3,000 ingredients but the Food and Drug Administration has resisted labels for genetically altered foods.
The Sanders Amendment would make it clear that states may require clear labels that let consumers know what they're eating. “Monsanto and other major corporations should not get to decide this, the people and their elected representatives should,” Sanders said.
The medical community has raised serious health concerns about genetically engineered food. The American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association have passed resolutions that support labeling foods with genetically engineered ingredients.[\Quote]
Astronuc said:Maybe we need to have a thread on 'Reliable Sources or Polls'.
In the NE, I heard about Siena political polls, which were primarily, if not exclusively, NY State, and the Quinnipicac Polls from Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, which seemed to be much broader.
https://www.siena.edu/centers-institutes/siena-research-institute/political-polls/
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/
Evo said:Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is an idiot that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such an idiot in either case.
Evo said:Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is an idiot that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such an idiot in either case.
That last part about about the "medical community" raising serious concerns about GMO is about as accurate as saying the space community has serious concerns about visits from UFOs.brainpushups said:Here is one part from his website:
I saw some lights that seemed to be in a line and it was almost like an upside-down check mark, and I saw them fly by and thought it was awfully strange," [Astronaut Leroy] Chiao told The Huffington Post
You're correct, I readbrainpushups said:Here is one part from his website:
It appeared to me that this is part of a longer term plan to control or stop production of GMO foods. What else would be the point of gathering this information? But I am breaking my own rules here on speculating. I am sorry.Sanders’ measure also would require the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.
Evo said:Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is someone that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such a person in either case.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said today he does not know whether new poll numbers putting him within 7 percentage points of Hillary Clinton in Iowa mean her campaign for the Democratic http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/elections/presidential-nomination.htm is in trouble, but his campaign is "doing great."
Sanders’ appearance at Liberty was the boldest example yet of his attempt to appeal to people outside the traditional umbrella of the Democratic party and expand the party’s base — something he called engaging in “civil discourse.” The independent who calls himself a “democratic socialist” has sought to topple Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination.
Evo said:You're correct, I read It appeared to me that this is part of a longer term plan to control or stop production of GMO foods. What else would be the point of gathering this information? But I am breaking my own rules here on speculating. I am sorry.
I respectfully disagree. It is not my view, nor have I suggested, that GMO food causes health problems. What I have said is that the people of our country, as well as people around the world, have the right to make choices in terms of what they eat and have the right to have labels telling them whether or not food is made with GMOs. As you know, GMO labeling exists in dozens of countries and the state legislature in Vermont also passed a bill requiring that. I support that effort.
Sanders said:The major issue in terms of our electoral system is truly campaign finance reform. Right now, we are at a moment in history where the Koch brothers and other billionaires are in the process of buying politicians and elections. We need to overturn Citizens United with a constitutional amendment. We need to pass disclosure legislation. We need to move toward public funding of elections. We also have got to see an increased federal role in the outrageous gerrymandering that Republican states have created and in voter suppression. These are the main issues that I'll be tackling in the coming months.
I believe that the TPP is a disastrous agreement and I am working as hard as I can to see it defeated. One of the reasons that the middle class of this country is disappearing is because we have lost some 60,000 factories since 2001 and millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs. We need trade agreements that protect and benefit working families, not just the CEOs of large corporations.
last year, I helped write the most comprehensive veterans legislation passed in many years. Trust me, I had to change my position on very important aspects of veterans' health care in order to get it passed. In terms of health care, I am an advocate of a Medicare-for-all single-payer program. I voted for the Affordable Care Act, not because I think it is the end place as to where we should be, but because I was able to get a major provision in it that greatly expanded primary health care -- which is helping many millions of people today. So the bottom line is that you have to stick by your values but when you're in an elected position, especially when you're in a conservative Congress, now and then you're going to have to compromise.
Colorado has led the effort toward legalizing marijuana and I'm going to watch very closely to see the pluses and minuses of what they have done. I will have more to say about this issue within the coming months.
I voted against the USA Patriot Act and voted against reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act. Obviously, terrorism is a serious threat to this country and we must do everything that we can to prevent attacks here and around the world. I believe strongly that we can protect our people without undermining our constitutional rights and I worry very very much about the huge attacks on privacy that we have seen in recent years -- both from the government and from the private sector. I worry that we are moving toward an Orwellian society and this is something I will oppose as vigorously as I can.
At the end of the day, the war against ISIS will only be won when the Muslim countries in the area fully engage and defeat ISIS and other groups that are distorting what Islam is supposed to be about.
mheslep said:WSJ has front page article placing a price tag on Sanders new program proposals - $16 trillion / ten years. Largest part to come from single payer health plan.
Paul Waldman, the author of that blog post and progressive writer for the American Prospect, did ... something.Pythagorean said:...Washington Post did a little verifying and clarifying:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/
What exactly he finds wrong there?Pythagorean said:against TPP:
Czcibor said:What exactly he finds wrong there?
Americans made my country to already sign something in this line many years ago. So would he also try to reverse prior deals?Pythagorean said:The TPP has rules in it that essentially allow a corporation to sue a country if they feel it's policies are encroaching on its profits and the court process is handled by a very small set of arbiters that are representatives of the corporations.
This can lead to situations where policies are being set in the interest of international corporations rather than the citizens, and could lead to abuse by corporations (monetary threats over policy changes) at the expense of citizens of the host country.