War as business-as-usual is DISGUSTING and UNDEMOCRATIC.

War is only bad when their guy is in the White House.

It's one of my critical issues.

Yes, we need to end our wars.

Yes, Bernie agrees.

No, I don't think "we" can get Hillary to agree without the money and influence of the oligarchy behind us.

Will I vote for Hillary if she is the nominee? I'll consider that question if she wins. I don't think she will.

Yes, I'm anti-war.

Yes, our elected official should abide by our desire for peace.

is not necessary to defend against terrorist attacks.

I think it is very, very rare that war is ever necessary.

It's convenient for some. It's profitable for some. Neither of those are necessary.

But please. If you are worried about terrorists, I'm sure you can enlist and ask to be pointed in their direction.

We have the FBI for a reason. They tried to stop 9/11.

War is not the answer to every question.

and create peace. The best we can hope for is a President that seeks to avoid war.

war is too good for business.


And no, it's not a fringe issue with me. But then I don't think of any of the issues as fringe, unless you include changing the white house curtains.

in the Middle East, not less. Half of Americans even support troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

Most Americans are now against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not "war" in general

The 50/50 split is on the specific question of more boots on the ground. More aggression could include things like more aggressive bombing or drone campaigns, no-fly-zones, etc.

As for "war" in general, that's silly. The specific conflict that is going on right now is with ISIS, and with regard to that, the American people don't want to end American involvement, they want to escalate it.

Most Republicans seem to. That's as far as I'd go.
As a previous poster sid: "Show me"

Strip away the sensationalism and ask generically
"Are you in favor of war"
you'd never get a plurality.
What you showed me was tantamount to push polling I think.

we put boots on the ground, you get a big majority for the first, and an even split for the second.

Asking "are you in favor of war" is vague and meaningless. Nobody likes war in the abstract, not even Patton.

"is war a critical issue for you". I took that 'in the abstract'.
Anyhow. there are too many who's first impulse is violence. I'll give you that.

most meaningly be called a "war" is the one with ISIS. And the American people don't want to end that one.

I agree that if you asked people in the abstract, do they like war, they will say no.

Heck, i drove by the Marine recruiter the other day and the line was out the door

Probably couldn't wait to get those free plane tickets for fun and adventure in the M.E.

As a 21-year retired veteran, war should be the last option. Hillary does agree that war should be the last option. Do you really think that Bernie will never declare war if it is necessary, ie-America is attack by some terrorists. He will..

1) Declaring war is a function of the congress, responsibility the congress has evaded for 60+ years.

2) We have already used the "war on terrorism" for illegally attacking other countries and illegally invading one.

3) Terrorism is a tactic. You can't declare war on it, any more than you can declare war on "negative advertising" in politics.

by preventing an attack on American soil through use of the intelligence community.

Iraq had NBC weapons?

made us war criminals, killed millions, and made us an international pariah, it is a MAJOR issue

War is slavery and rape .

Winning a war is like winning an earthquake.

She's a war hawk. Her support for cluster bombs, further engagement in Syria and Libya, the coup in Honduras etc etc

Yep, a top issue for me

my anal-sadistic impulses on Third World heads-of-state and call it Progressivism™ then yes, war is a critical issue for me

Last edited Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Edited to reflect my complete misinterpretation of this post

Sorry!!

I think we need to please corporate America, weapons makers, career military officers, and chickenhawks. I don't have kids, so they're going to send your kids off to die, and I don't care about your kids. I think we need to invade small, defenseless countries on a semi-regular basis, and an aggressive foreign policy will help with that. It makes me sexually excited to see those bombs falling, and to think of the thousands of "them" being killed. And I get to confront people who advocate for peace, and accuse them of being unpatriotic. Not that I ever served myself, but I make up for it by being extra ultra hyper patriotic. And by "patriotic," of course I mean nationalistic, xenophobic, racist and just plain mean.

if you listened to the debate yesterday you
could hear the sabers coming out already.

Cruz wants to carpet bomb and then get the hell
out of there, for instance.

We have to come away from this kind of useless
thinking and use the UN a lot more.

Instead we talk about being leaders in the world,
which is very dangerous and oblivious of the
facts on the ground.

And I am very much against wars. I was against the Vietnam War and I was against the Iraq war - even during the build-up to it.

I think Hillary is a hawk. I am hoping if she is nominated that she will listen to the people on this issue, but I rather doubt it.

Even so, I will definitely vote for her if she is the nominee. The alternative is just too awful. I dare anyone to watch a debate, such as last night's, and say they would rather have one of those characters than Hillary Clinton.

I don't think Bernie or Hillary is going to end war. Bernie has already said he would continue to use drones and support countries at war with military and financial aid. Hillary is going to continue the Obama policy.
So who is the anti war candidate? We don't have one.

and protested against the Vietnam conflict. We DO have a "pro-war" candidate, and that's Hillary. She has said that her foreign policy will be "much more muscular" than Obama's, and worse: http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484

What do you think it means when he says he will continue to use drones, arm and train foriegn troops and defeat Isis?

One involves the use of a large number of ground troops, as well as mercenaries. Using drones, arming and training foriegn troops to go after members of ISIS is a much smaller scale operation that does *not* involve thousands of boots on the ground and trillions spent on military hardware and paid mercenaries. Do you honestly think the American people will vote for a candidate who says that they'll simply leave ISIS alone? Of course not. Bernie wants to pull U.S. forces out of the Mideast and have our Middle Eastern allies deal with the bulk of operations against extremists there. Hillary wants to bomb Iran, which would be a hundred times worse than the Iraq invasion!

I understand that a candidate needs to tread carefully on the issue of Empire, but it is our prevalent affliction. There will be no financial security until the military budget is curtailed.

Still, a Sanders presidency would undoubtedly see fewer entanglements and misadventures.

I wish he would come out more forceful.

As you say... "Still, a Sanders presidency would undoubtedly see fewer entanglements and misadventures."

Hillary is a war hawk and has said that she will have a "much more muscular" foreign policy than Obama, and has said that she wants to attack Iran. If that were the only thing on which I disagreed with her that would be enough to keep me from voting for her.

Those bastards have killed hundreds of millions to keep their filthy position. Like Gen. Smedley Butler USMC put it: "War is a Racket."

Diana Johnstone wrote a new book on the subject and its impact on our recent politics:

When we protested the Vietnam war, a big hunk of the complaint was Johnson & Nixon lying about it. I just grabbed these quick from Google (I do not completely endorse them):

Lying About Vietnam
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/29/opinion/lying-about-vietnam.html

30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War
http://fair.org/media-beat-column/30-year-anniversary-tonkin-gulf-lie-launched-vietnam-war/

Exposing Nixon’s Vietnam Lies
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/08/10/exposing-nixons-vietnam-lies/

The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason'
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668

Nixon Prolonged Vietnam War for Political Gain—And Johnson Knew About It, Newly Unclassified Tapes Suggest
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/#QdD74ZIiSObmXhsV.99
“Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,” says the BBC.

I do not think I have to provide links for Bush, Cheney and Rice.

Hillary is like Nixon. She's a very secretive, chronic liar and surrounds herself with people "who have little interest in context or the truth and much more interest in dealing with obstacles in an aggressive way" according to Carl Bernstein who wrote a major biography on Hillary.

That's a candidate who is a higher risk for going to war.

Or as many call it "foreign policy"

Hillary's experience has no victories just continued war.

...especially considering what I've been hearing at the Republican debates. Those guys are headed towards WW3 in a hurry.