Posted on 09/11/2014 4:32:06 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
in Iraq and Syria but warned of an escalating conflict overseas and the need to focus on domestic issues.
Sanders is often to the left of Obama and has said he is considering a presidential run in 2016 to the left of Hillary Clinton. But on Wednesday night, he backed the core of Obama's plan.
"I think the president is right, that we've got to help the so-called Syrian moderates," Sanders said on MSNBC. "God knows how many of them that there are. I think airstrikes are an important part."
"But let us be very mindful of Vietnam ... and let's be mindful of the Bush-Cheney War in Iraq and the disastrous impact that had on the region and on our country," he added.
In his speech on Wednesday night, Obama also took pains to show how his plan was different from the Iraq War under former President George W. Bush.
"I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," Obama said. "It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."
While backing Obama's plan, Sanders also emphasized his core issue of income inequality.
"There is no question that ISIS is a dangerous and brutal organization and that they have got to be stopped," Sanders said. "But I tell you what I'm a little worried about. This country today in terms of a collapsing middle class, more people living in poverty than ever before in the history of this country, growing income and wealth inequality, you know what? We have enormous domestic issues.
Sanders told The Hill last month that he is considering a presidential run. "I’ll be going to New Hampshire, and I’ll be going to Iowa," he said then. "That’s part of my trying to ascertain the kind of support that exists for a presidential run.”
Defeating ISIS and helping the Syrian “moderates” are two different things. Helping the Syrian rebels is how we got ISIS in the first place.
It strikes me that while O talks about defeating ISIS he is really talking about building another ISIS.
Yeah, Democrats sure effed THAT up didn't they!
...when the Hell have leftists EVER shut up about Nam?
If Obama is serious about defeating ISIS he would resign now!
We will do this in a pointless effort to topple Assad, but the real goal will be to create an unstoppable Caliphate that can push the Jews into the sea and reclaim the Levant for Islam.
Sure Bernie, that's the one where you rooted for the commies, right?
-——Helping the Syrian rebels is how we got ISIS in the first place.-—
No, that is not true. You are mistaken.
Think Russia, think China........ in both nations the revolution was hijacked, by communists. In syria, the revolution was hijacked by the radicals, ISIS
“... U. S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Ind.-Vt.) said he is considering
a presidential run in 2016 to the left of Hillary Clinton ...”
-
Run, Bernie, Run!
He said that Obama will not ask Congress for permission to bomb Syria because he has gotten wind that liberal Dems in the House are going to attempt to stonewall him.
IRAQ & VIETNAM: DEMOCRATS LOSE WON WARS; HOLOCAUST TO FOLLOW
There has been a huge increase in US casualties in Afghan every since Obama took over plus he and his pals have changed the ROE’s to where our military is fighting with their hands tied. Liberals not only lie- there are very dangerous to our military.
Another RED heard from.
Nothing new. Never will be.
As for Bush and Iraq, the only reason Obama has the luxury of involving the US in only airstrikes while he relies on the Iraq army for boots on the ground is because Bush undertook the Iraq war and established an American footprint in the region. That, in spite of all the nonsense about WMD's and the rest, was the real mission of the war, and although Obama almost followed in the footsteps of previous 'rats who threw away victory in Vietnam by prematurely withdrawing all forces from Iraq, we may still be able to save things there with advisers, intel, and supportive air cover - nobody's forgetting, Bernie......
All the Iraq war showed the world is that we wouldn’t fight a prolonged conflict (and I guess that we learned to flee at night to avoid those photos of helicopters on the embassy roof). The Iraq war in hindsight seemed to have one purpose in mind - to destabilize the Middle East.
After all, it accomplished nothing else.
"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions...."
--Democrat John Kerry (confessed war criminal)
Sadly this is eerily like what took place in Vietnam, when Senate Democrats refused to fund military aid President Nixon had promised to South Vietnam as part of the peace agreement - realizing they were being abandoned, the South Vietnamese army lost morale and the will to fight and left the field as the North Vietnamese predictably violated the agreement and poured south (just as what was left of the Iraqi army did as ISIS invaded) - hence the helicopters on the embassy roof which the Vietnam-haters like to talk about so much - apparently we've learned nothing at all.......
Iraq was never stable after we toppled our former ally Saddam; the daily violence across the country demonstrated that our leaders were lying. The final proof was the midnight skedaddle, to prevent losses to our servicemen and avoid pictures like the embassy roof in Saigon in 1975.
We did hold an election in Iraq (which we never allowed in South Vietnam, out of fear the communists would win). A common complaint of American advisers from the start of, and throughout, our engagement in Vietnam was that the ARVN wouldn’t fight (in some cases they would, in more they wouldn’t). As a Catholic I think there was a justification for defending South Vietnam; as in Iraq I don’t think it was handled properly.
Understand that these decisions were made by people with a lot more information than we have, and the outcome was predicted by so many of us. It lends credibility to the destabilization theory; “military aid” means nothing without dedicated soldiers. The end result is just a lot of US equipment/weapons in the wrong hands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.