So, you remember the barracks in Beruit that was bombed, and all the US Marines who were killed, during Reagan? Did the cost exceed what we were trying to accomplish? Did we win? (hint: Ronnie quietly tucked his tail between his legs and slunk us home)
And invaded Grenada within a day or two - the quintessential dog-wag.
“Now look what you made me do!” is not a respectable excuse from even an eight year old. “We are pre-empting them from making war against us” was the Japanese justification for Pearl Harbor.
No excuses - if we “bomb, bomb Iran”, it would be a matter of OUR choice. You need to accept responsibility for your actions.
Why would you think Hillary, the most trigger-happy prominent Democrat in the last forty years, the #1 driver of the Patriot Act and Iraq war in the Senate, the person who has been threatening Iran with nuclear annihilation for seven years, would make any decisions about the use of military force differently than what Reagan or Bush did? If you think she is a popular candidate among pacifists you are sorely mistaken. If anything, she is counting on the fact that she never met a war she didn’t like to bolster her support among national security voters, especially if she matches up with Rand Paul.
Oh, is *that *going to be this round’s version of “Kerry’s the most liberal member of the Senate”? Good, I was wondering.
It’s going to be funny watching you furiously disavow that you ever denied Hillary’s warmongering credentials once the left opposition is neutralized and she’s bragging about her war votes to defeat a Republican. This is my placeholder for quoting this exchange in August 2016 and laughing. See you then.
When you can show you understand the difference between starting a war and deterring one, your views on the subject can start to be taken seriously.
What makes you think she would make any decisions about the use of military force differently than what Obama did?
Policy is not law. Any POTUS is free to change a policy at any time. Yes, what happens would depend on who wins in 2016.
She’s a woman. So, you know, hormones.
I agree – whether Democrats continue the “the President can do anything he wants, Congressional elections have no consequences, and any elected official who disagrees with the President is being an ‘obstructionist’” dance most definitely does depend on who wins in 2016.
But mostly it depends on your imagination.
The fact that Obama was elected on a tide of anti-Iraq war sentiment, and Clinton won’t be (can’t be, given her integral role in hyping and authorizing the war).
But she won’t be elected on a tide of pro-war sentiment either. She’ll have a free hand so far as that goes.