Of the things that are actually achievable, what would Sanders do differently than Clinton?

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

In terms of meaningful differences, the ones that have caught my attention are:

1. Clinton seems to be tepidly supportive of nuclear power while Sanders is against it. If you believe nuclear power is a necessary part of the answer to global warming then this might be a meaningful reason to differentiate between them.

2. As was noted by Martin Hyde Clinton will keep us involved in the Middle East. Sanders has said that we should leave the people in the region to figure it out for themselves.

As a Clinton supporter who wouldn’t lose any sleep over having to vote for Sanders, #2 really bothers me. This shows a Trump-Cruz level of ignorance of what is going on in Syria and the Middle East and I am not sure I would want my President to go into the job with these kinds of blinders on.

@iamthewalrus_3

Could you comment more on this? I think you’re right that he’d likely be the most resistant to military interventions, but I think your framing of the issue is interesting. Gulf War I had overwhelming support but, in retrospect, was it a net positive? Can we look back and say it’s a good thing we had that overwhelming support and went to war? Have any of our military interventions in the middle east since then resulted in positive outcomes?

I wasn’t asked but I feel free to answer: Yes, Gulf War I was a net positive. It contained a dictator and established the Kurdish independent zone in Iraq. There were very few casualties on our side.

There are five positive outcomes for our recent military interventions in the Middle East: 1) The Kurdistan Regional Government; 2) preventing ISIS from obliterating the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. Nobody was going to help them and I am extremely gratified we have. I don’t want to imagine how much worse the nightmare they live under would be if we hadn’t helped out; 3) the advent of drone warfare; 4) more intelligent cooperation with local forces in obtaining favorable military outcomes; 5) sustained offensive against al Qaeda linked groups and now ISIS.

[DSeid]

John I ask these questions and make these comments as someone actually very unsure myself …

Sometimes the knowledge that one side is very reluctant to engage emboldens the other side to go farther … until there is no choice but to engage from a weaker position. I prefer diplomacy first and military as a much less preferred option but I fear that a foreign policy lightweight, which Sanders is, will only tempt testing, and not just in the Middle East, but in Eastern Europe and the South China Sea as well.

What sort of response do you think would be appropriate for a major domestic attack by ISIS, say of 911 magnitude? What sort of measures do you think are appropriate to take to prevent such a provocation? Is it best just to wait and hope that no such provocation occurs? Should we just get out of the way and let the various sides massacre everyone they can on each of the other sides? If we do that how do we respond to the even more massive humanitarian crisis that results, to the flow of refugees? Is a proposal to have Iran and SA team up and send ground troops into Syria and to keep the the United States’ hands (let alone boots) clean, seriously a realistic approach? If theoretically it was possible to get SA to put aside their fear of Iran and its proxies, and Iran to put aside its own regional ambitions, to work together against ISIS, does Sanders have the relationships and chops to pull it off?