Just the people living in the Mid East will fight

Still not a policy


And we will have change when 10 million people demand it.

Bernie isn't up to the challenge .

Both of them say that the war can't be won by an air campaign AND the US should not contribute the ground forces.

I have seen posts on each and every topic, that Bernie "does not have a policy". In fact, neither does Clinton. What she does have are position papers, often impressive in detail, on every topic. Yet, on issues where legislation is required, I question whether the detail adds much to just stating the goal. What did we learn from health care and 2008?

What I learned was that the details to anything needing Congressional approval will be what can get the votes in Congress. In 2008, there were great arguments here on the (in retrospect) rather minute differences in the plans of Obama, Clinton and Edwards. Yet, it is entirely likely that no matter which person had won the nomination - if their coat tails were as long as Obama's - so we got the same Congress, the plan would have been very similar. Hillary already has a campaign almost the size of a general election campaign -- Bernie Sanders doesn't.

Foreign policy is a bit different as there are things a President can do on his/her own. Here, more than carefully crafted for political impact position papers -- at a point where neither Clinton or Bernie set policy is one piece of information. The other is looking to what they said they would have done on things before the outcome was known.

Hillary Clinton's book speaks of where she might have been different from Obama - and it was right and good that she wrote this. Much more than her plan for ISIS, what concerns me is that she would have been more likely to get us committed to more military action - in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq than Obama did -- and less likely to pursue the Iran deal, which she was pretty skeptical about. Getting sanctions in place worldwide was important to getting Iran to the table. (On climate change, her comments in the debate bragging about "hunting Chinese" suggest she would not have been as likely to take the path that Obama/Kerry did which built up trust with them to get the key China/US pact -- especially as the tilt to Asia was mostly seen as a bulwark against China.

when will he learn there are different Muslim nations with different strategic objectives and sectarian alliances?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141288616

Dec. 14, 2015 9:26 PM EST

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia says 34 Muslim-majority nations have agreed to form a new military alliance to fight terrorism with a joint operations center based in the kingdom's capital, Riyadh.

The announcement carried early Tuesday by the Saudi Press Agency says the Saudi-led alliance was established because terrorism "should be fought by all means and collaboration should be made to eliminate it."

While Saudi Arabia's regional rival, Shiite Iran, is not part of the coalition, the alliance brings together diverse Muslim countries from several continents, including Mali, Malaysia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Egypt as well as neighboring Gulf countries such as the United Arab Emirates.

The announcement comes as Saudi Arabia leads a military intervention in Yemen against Shiite rebels and is part of the U.S.-led coalition bombing the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.

He needs ground troops from the Muslim nations because they are the ones that have the most at stake. What's wrong with that?

I thought WMUR was persona-non-grata, Mr. union guy.

They got a one time union wavier for this post.

OS

Still like you bro. All the best.

because they say they are from a different culture.

Why should the Syrians accept foreign invaders?

Did the Poles accept German invaders in WWII just because they were both majority Christian countries?

Doesn't look like they'll have much choice, now, will they?