I don't watch mainstream media, so maybe he is being ridiculed there, but at this point his candidacy isn't that unusual. In fact, as far as "fringe" candidates go, he's pretty un-fringey. We live in a fucked up world, where unfortunately the cream doesn't always rise to the top. Ideally, there would be a candidate that had the convictions of Sanders but could also go toe-to-toe with the bad guys of the world and stare them down. Is Bernie this guy? This is a genuine question of mine. Do you think he could elicit fear from our foreign foes? Could he command respect from our allies? It doesn't do much good to have the greatest military on earth if nobody thinks you'll ever use it. I hate war. I wish it didn't exit, but that's just not the world we live in. What is Bernie's take on utilizing our military force? What is his take on the very real threats that face our nation? I ask this because I genuinely want to know. galen -you seem pretty up on him as a candidate. He seems to have clearly defined domestic policy. What about foreign? Could he be the leader of the free world?
Galen's enthusiasm has gotten me to do some research: His issues page addresses: - INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY - GETTING BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS - CLIMATE CHANGE & ENVIRONMENT Fin. But, he has a voting record! We can query that(1)! I flipped back to just after 9/11 and had a look-see: - Voted against the Patriot Act - Voted against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 - Voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001 - As galen mentioned, he voted against the Use of Military Force Against Iraq I'm pretty sure I also saw that he voted for sanctions against Iran and somebody else while I was digging around. In the defense sphere he looks to me to be a civil libertarian who sees a standing military as being for defense. He voted in a way that was consistent with that in 2001 and 2002, at least. I'm interested as to how he voted regarding targeted drone strikes, but I'm not immediately sure what the relevant bills would be. ---- (1) - This is the first site that popped up in google. Take from that what you will.
Thank you for doing my homework for me keifermiller. badged.
Thanks for my first badge! For what it is worth, the sanctions I noticed turned out to be before 9/11. Everybody voted to pass it. It was an extension of Sanctions from the Clinton Administration.
What exactly are the very real threats facing the US? It sure isn't that another country would attack the US, considering yours is the most powerful military in the history of mankind. So what were you referring to?
I am mostly referring to a covert terrorist attack. There are groups of people intent on using unconventional methods to inflict the most possible damage on us. 911 is the best historical example in the U.S.
Here's a summary of what the mainstream media told us happened then: Does that seem credible? Well no. The story is absurd, and therefore simply not true. In other words, 911 is not the best historical example of a grave threat facing the US.
It's not just threats to America, but threats to our (democratic) allies. My main concern for the past year has been China's actions in the South China Sea, which have become a bigger problem as of late. It's contested area that most people recognize as international waters, but which China, along with the surrounding countries of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan (this is a special case), and Brunei all claim parts of. China is pretty aggressive about it, though, and their claims are some of the most absurd since their country is so far from the area and the other countries have much more history using them as fishing grounds, with Vietnam even establishing a few actual settlements. And an astronomically high amount of international trade runs through these waters. I should describe HOW China is being aggressive, though. They're performing rapid land reclamation projects around these waters on contested islands, and building military bases and airstrips. They declare it their sovereign territory and declare warnings to anybody passing over in the air. Besides this, they've been known to ram fishing boats of nationals of other countries, and they refuse to negotiate any of this except with each country individually so that they have much more pull (as the country that is by far more powerful than any of these individual claimants). It's actually a serious issue, with another country becoming militarized and it possibly pushing towards another bipolar paradigm in international politics. Maybe the US doesn't deserve to be the world superpower, but we're better than the alternative that nobody is really keen on stopping, and the existence and reach of our military is the only thing containing them right now.
Here's the list of military arms sales to Taiwan by the US. That's a lot for a tiny island.
There are always real threats, regardless of the times. You're my age, I'm guessing you recall the time that a small group of radical muslims decided to board a few planes. There are people that are intent on harming us. This is not disputable. That said, there's no arguing that foreign attacks on US soil have been rare, but if nothing else, the result of the 911 reaction from the US proves how important it is to assess a leaders thoughts and capabilities regarding such things. Honestly, there are two things I would hate to see in the white house, a militant war monger or a pacifist. Both would likely lead to catastrophe. I don't know squat about Sanders in this regard, so this is not a critique, rather a question.
We could sustain several 911's a year and they would do less damage to our freedoms and budget than the response to 911 has caused. The terrorist nicked us and we set in with a chainsaw on our own finances and freedoms. Our militarist attitudes make us a bigger danger to ourselves than any threat of terrorism.
there are two things I would hate to see in the white house, a militant war monger or a pacifist. Both would likely lead to catastrophe.
-We've seen the result of the former.
I don't think that GW was weak willed and I don't buy the puppet of Cheney and his cabinet that many people espouse. GW was a man of conviction. He believed strongly in his God given course and I believe that the buck stopped with him. Edit: He was one of the most effective presidents we have ever had. He got more done than anyone gives him credit for. Why? Because the things he accomplished sucked. Whole new branches of government. Tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars etc. Check out Front Line Bush's War. It's a good doc imo.
Here you go for the article : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/25/george_w_bush_is_smarter_than_you_118125.html :)
I've only been alive for some 20-odd years, but it seems to me that the United States - on a public-facing front since a few presidents before my time - is very much a tempest on the world stage. We have the sheer size, influence, finances and military strength to rival or eclipse almost any other nation on the planet, and yet such power gets wielded with all the tact and nuance of a drunken rhino. Looking at other countries in Europe, Africa, Asia, even South America to a degree, I see peoples who are heavily invested in, understanding of, and perceptive of the world around them, the players involved, and what their motivations are. The degree to which the United States continues to bumble about in self-imposed ignorance as if this was somehow a mark of greatness is mind boggling to me.
Preliminary answer: he opposed the 2002 AUMF which led to the Iraq War. He is generally anti-war; other than that I don't know that much about his foreign policy. (Crucial note: he is against war, but a strong advocate for veterans' benefits. He worked on the Senate VA Committee to reform aid programs.) Editing: He is fairly strongly pro-Israel, which troubles me personally. He supports--and supports financial aid to--the current Ukrainian government. He holds that Arab (PC?) nations should take the lead in the fight against Daesh. He vehemently opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
There's an issue of political expedience that gets overlooked by too many people. In this particular case, pro Israel is about the only position a US politician can be and keep his job. You basically got vehemently pro and pro. I want single payer healthcare goddammit but it's not politically expedient in the US so any politician who agrees with me isn't going to be able to deliver. Like vintage '08 Obama. Take the TPP. Hypothetically. I personally think it's a fast track for every manufacturing job left in America to move to Asia. Among the pro corporate IP protections that seem to be in it. But Obama is very pragmatic and he's very in favor of it. It could be that the global political maneuvers that we're not privy to make it attractive to him strategically. Or he's a sell-out shill in the pocket of the "corporations" (quotes because it's a vague term that gets thrown around all the time. He can't be in all their pockets, some of them don't like the others. Whatever.) If you can follow me, I'm actually being less cynical than most people with strong opinions on these things and less cynical than I usually am about many things. Anyway, national and international politics is this weird job where you have to make big utilitarian decisions that most people won't even know all the details of the pro/con you're weighing while still protecting a job you can literally be voted out of for pissing off too many people. Unless you live in China, then the voting not so much.He is fairly strongly pro-Israel, which troubles me personally.
Absolutely. And it's fascinating/deeply frustrating for me to see the rarity with which politically expedient positions align with popular opinion--even purely domestically. The influence of advocacy groups, of ideologues, and of political cynicism, not to mention necessary foreign relations, on our process is overwhelming.
There was a time not too long ago when being pro-Israel was considered an ideal and not simply a politically expedient position. You, unfortunately, have had to grow up not knowing much else besides Netanyahu, who is a monster. Not all Israeli politicians are like him. Let's not forget that Bernie Sanders is Jewish, as are many of his current and former Democratic Senate colleagues. Off the top of my head, Carl Levin, Russ Feingold, Charles Shumer, Joe Lieberman, all Jewish, all strong supporters of Israel, and all with major liberal cred (maybe with the exception of Lieberman, who seems like a war monger sometimes). For these men I'm sure being pro-Israel has little to nothing to do with political expediency, and much more to do with deeply held convictions. (Of course there are many non-Jewish politicians who also see support for Israel as a matter of principle and not just convenience.) Sadly, support for the ideal of Israel has become difficult in the last number of years thanks to Likud and their nonstop media machine, which by all accounts makes Fox News look like Walter Cronkite. I hope someday soon that Likud will go away, and that Israel will take a step back on their illegal encroachments into captured territory. Unfortunately, we saw in the last election that that day isn't going to come in the immediate term. But a bad government doesn't necessarily signify a bad state (we've had some really bad governments, obviously, but I think on the whole the US is a very positive state for the world). In the long game, support for democratic ideals, for human rights, for economic opportunity, all while protecting an entire people that the world has tried to do away with many times, is the right policy.
he is against war
He seems generally anti-intervention
-Problem is, the bad guys don't care if you want to fight or not, they're still going to slap you in the face. Ideally, our leader wouldn't go around slapping people but when slapped, he/she will drop the hammer. IMO.
The US and US interests can, at times, be indistinguishable. Isolationism--what you're advocating whether you know it or not--has been proven by history to be very bad for a great many people. Isolationism led to literally hundreds of millions of people needlessly suffering and dying in the 20th c. Fortunately, we had these lessons in hand in the days immediately after WWII, and we were able to somewhat contain Stalin's march across Europe. If you like and respect Western Europe at all, you can thank US interventionism, because without it Italy, France, probably even GB would all have become satellite states of the Soviet bloc in the late 40s and early 50s. This isn't to say that interventionism is always a good policy. But it helps to keep in mind that in some situations protecting our interests around the globe is good for the citizens whom we're immediately protecting, and is good for us in the long run. China and Russia currently offer the greatest examples of threats to US interests that could ultimately threaten us or our close allies. Both countries are blatantly violating the modern law we all share that says that countries can't annex territory by force. It is the most essential law of the UN. (Annexation was the catalyst that caused both world wars--Franz Ferdinand was a pretext if anything). At some point, these issues will have to be confronted (hopefully Putin will just implode, but surely China won't). We can hope that diplomacy will prevail, but rule of law is more important than diplomacy, IMO.
Define Foreign Power. If you mean a sovereign state, then yes. If you mean someone with power that is a foreigner to the US, then no. There are real threats that exist. People want to harm the US domestically and abroad. I'd rather they didn't. My guess is that Sanders rathers they didn't too. I'm just wondering to what extent he would use the US military to ensure this? It's a valid question that should be asked of all candidates. He's going to have to answer these things. I like his agenda, which keifermiller outlines well in his comment here, but a huge part of the presidency is foreign policy. Money out of politics - who is going to disagree? Income and wealth inequality? -Who, with a conscience is going to argue against this? Climate change? -Okay, I'm with ya. What about the rest? If he wants to ACTUALLY be president, we need more from him. If he just wants to ensure certain topics get in to the debates etc, then he need not elaborate. It's early in the #sillyseason, I'm sure these things will come up.
Still not convinced it's that much of an issue. I get that there are people that want to harm the US. But by and large, they can't or won't. For all its appearances, terror has killed relatively few people. As you concede, no foreign nation is threatening us. So who is? In any case, you're right, these issues will certainly come up, since we know that Bernie is a serious candidate, in it to win, etc.
You don't want this or this. A President is going to have to make BIG decisions that have life and death implications. Knowing where they stand in regard to utilizing our military is pretty important stuff imo.Still not convinced it's that much of an issue.
Yeah, its one of those things that isn't an issue until its an issue.
I've got to agree with cgod on this point :
We could sustain several 911's a year and they would do less damage to our freedoms and budget than the response to 911 has caused.
For sure. The aftermath of 911 was/is a mess. I never said otherwise, in fact I mentioned it was a reason to know how a leader feels about military might. That said, we may be able to sustain those types of attacks financially but there are other implications. Remember the national psyche after 911? It was awful. Absolutely awful. I'd rather never experience that again. Certainly not several times a year.
Actually, I don't remember it. I'd moved away from the USA about 3 years before, and from the outside, it looked like a lot of media-driven knee-jerk over-reacting (after the first few weeks anyway). Maybe I'm not being 911-sensitive enough, but damn man - you guys allowed what should have been a simple one-time tragedy to become an ongoing tragicomedy of errors which helped to further ruin a country already on the skids.
The first weeks sucked. Then we went to Afghanistan and had the world behind us. Then "W" decided to go after the bad guy that tried to kill his daddy. Imagine a plane takes out the Q1 tower and then the Eureka tower and nothing like it has ever happened before. It would have an effect on you.
I do know a little about those emotions, though. I lived in Oklahoma City in 1995.
BTW I'm gonna pretend you said "Sky Tower" and, um, hmm - some other big building in NZ.
I had to google those two towers to see what you were talking about :-)
HA! I swear I googled largest building in New Zealand. edit: Imagine a plane crashes in to the shire
Google, being helpful - "NZ? Really? Are you sure you didn't mean 'tallest building in Australia' ? I'm pretty sure that's what you meant, so here's your search results!"
What specifically do you want a leader to do to ensure a 9/11 doesn't happen again?
I don't have a specific answer, but I would hope that our president take the appropriate steps to monitor terrorist networks and their intentions. I am not an expert in these things, but I would hope our president would be. Income equality, climate change and campaign finance are all big and important topics that need addressing but our president will still have to protect our nation. There are those that say Bill Clinton specifically warned Bush about Bin Ladin and Bush didn't take the threat seriously enough. I would hope our president not be naive or myopic in their agenda. I know that as a liberal it's not cool to say that national security is important, but it is.
Well, to ignore the point of your argument here (sorry about that), a sizeable portion of people say Bush was warned about Bin Laden and didn't follow closely enough because it was politically uncomfortable for him with the personal ties his family had to Bin Laden's network. Keeping military and surveillance tabs on his friends was ironically something he avoided before explosively expanding NSA programs to do just that post-9/11.