If one person were to be present and vote stop war, would that happen?

Why not? What's the point of congress then?

also who?

Answer: Candidate for president?

Turns out the Gulf War was clearly justified and had significant positive ramifications for the country, and to call Saddam a "two-bit dictator" exposed how worryingly out of touch Sanders was and is.

LOL

never taking an opinion of yours seriously again

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 12, 2015, 06:44:21 AM

Turns out the Gulf War was clearly justified and had significant positive ramifications for the country, and to call Saddam a "two-bit dictator" exposed how worryingly out of touch Sanders was and is.

LOL

never taking an opinion of yours seriously again

Pretty sure you've said that numerous times before. Saddam wasn't a two-bit dictator; he massacred ethnic groups and was invading Kuwait to gain control of one of the most strategically important ports in the area, ostensibly to use oil resources to leverage the world into allowing his rampage. Desert Storm is arguably one of the most clearly justified, good vs. evil-type war since WWII.

Keep drinking the kool aid, buddy

I'm not your buddy, friend.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 12, 2015, 08:53:03 AM

Quote from: SecondClass on July 12, 2015, 07:01:22 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 12, 2015, 06:44:21 AM

Turns out the Gulf War was clearly justified and had significant positive ramifications for the country, and to call Saddam a "two-bit dictator" exposed how worryingly out of touch Sanders was and is.

LOL

never taking an opinion of yours seriously again

Pretty sure you've said that numerous times before. Saddam wasn't a two-bit dictator; he massacred ethnic groups and was invading Kuwait to gain control of one of the most strategically important ports in the area, ostensibly to use oil resources to leverage the world into allowing his rampage. Desert Storm is arguably one of the most clearly justified, good vs. evil-type war since WWII.

For the soldiers.

For the higher ups this was nothing but resource control. They couldn't care less about the people he was massacring, because if they did they'd send troops to several other places where genocide is occurring.

As bad as it sounds, resource control is a legitimate reason for a coalition's intervention. Saddam posed a serious threat to budding global trade and world stability by attempting to take Kuwait. Other nations experiencing genocides is terrible, and it doesn't go unnoticed in the realm of global politicking, but the U.S. can't and shouldn't be used as a global police force for every civil atrocity that occurs.

But that's my point, we only really get involved when there's resources and money in the equation. We didn't primarily do it to stop evil.

That's not bad exactly, but let's be honest. We shouldn't act like the motives were moral first and monetary second.

Well it's not like people were getting rich off of this. I think there's quite a bit of morality involved in stopping a dictator, who has demonstrated willingness to massacre people for very little reason, from holding a significant portion of the world's oil supply hostage. If oil trade were to be disrupted, it would have far more impact on the world than some 1%ers losing a bit of cash.

the gulf war was very justifiable though, if he was making these claims about the 2003 iraq war then sure.

One of he few areas I find myself disagreeing with him. The Gulf War =/= the 2003 Iraq war. Saddam was invading Kuwait for oil. Had he been victorious he would have had substantial control over world prices. It was a fairly united effort, and was over and done with rather quickly. There was no nation rebuilding. No teaching democracy. No fighting an insurgency of fundamentalist terrorist. The world shoved him out of Kuwait, and that was that. A necessary move imo.

I still think he's the best candidate so far by far.