Bernie Sanders. Worse than Isis?

a reply to: nwtrucker

If anything vietnam was when it started going off the rails! Vietnam should never of happened.

Foreign policy one if not the top thing I would add if I could make a change to your constitution.

I would make 1 amendment banning the USA makeing alliences with nations that do not share US values.

2nd one would be to ban the US from starting a war unless under direct threat or a ally was DIRECTLY attacked.

3rd one would be to ban the sale of arms or support of any group that either does not share US values or is in violation of the terratoty of a sovereign nation not a enemy of the USA.

That would pretty much balance things out in black and white.


Under those conditions

Bushes cock up in Iraq 2.0 never would have happend

Obama cock up in libya never would have happened

Regans Iran contra never would of happend

Vietnam never would of happened (usa should never have made a allince with the south )

Bay of pigs never would have happend

The myriad of south American cia ops never would have happend

But

Afghanistan would have been ok

The regan doctrine to bankrupt the USSR would have been ok

Ww2 would have been ok

Iraq 1.0 would have been ok.

originally posted by: crazyewok
But it didnt prevent a civil war and in the last 30 years of America being sold out and flushed down the toilet.

The way things are going our Constitution is going to cause another Civil War and for the exact same reason, the debate over states rights.

The problem is that if the federal government gets too weak we cease to be homogeneous as a nation, for example to take one issue we have right now which is education. If the feds don't step in and enforce any national standards what is there to ensure each person in the US receives an adequate education? We have a state right now, Louisiana where the governor is running on a campaign of improving literacy because adult literacy in the state has jumped from 60% to 66% under their term. Think about that for a minute, we have states where those running them are bragging about a 66% literacy rate. If the feds get completely out of education what will happen? What is there to ensure someone from Florida, Texas, or Louisiana is actually taught what they need to know in order to go on to college?

Another issue is interstate commerce, if we reduce the power of the federal government, we lose the ability to regulate this and without interstate commerce we might as well be 50 nations rather than one.

Of course you have the other side too where someone in Texas gets upset that someone in California gets a voice on laws that effect them, such as when the Supreme Court reacting largely to public sentiment ruled that gay marriage laws are discriminatory and therefore illegal, another example would be Congress of which only 2/100 Senators actually represent that state passes a gun control law.

Americans like having a big voice and not sharing that voice with others, which is why so many support states rights and why most people are happy with their Congressmen even though Congress itself polls extremely low in it's approval rating.

a reply to: nwtrucker

He may be the only one offering the sort of clear thinking and change that you need to save your country. If you don't vote for him, then you will wind up with what you deserve. Good luck with that.

All I could find him saying was that certain other rights needed to be added to the constitution, not that the constitution needed to be changed. If he actually did say the constitution needs changing can someone please show me? Because that would be big.

a reply to: Aazadan

See thats why I think the constitution should be somewhat modernised to spell out exactly what those rights are so there is no misunderstanding.

Take you example of education.

My amendment would be:

Every state MUST provide the people with adequate education up until age 18. But it is up to the state how they do that and how it is financed.

Minimum fed standards will be clearly established (IE based on SAT scores and 99% literacy rates) failure to meet such standards would be unconstitutional and result in the state government impeached.

Just to be a smart arse....

It doesnt matter if the founding fathers were racists, homophobic, sexist or freaking space aliens.


The constitution was not actually written by them......


It was actually written by great Britain by king William III in 1689.

You guy just copied it and changed the wording about


Actually thats mostly why you had a revolution cause we were not following it, at least in the colonies , maybe the US federal government should look into that, they may learn something

a reply to: nwtrucker
The Constitution has it flawes. That is why we have like a thousand amendments. The wonderful nature about our Constitution is that its a "living Constitution".

a reply to: crazyewok

Actually, Vietnam should never have been split in the first place, ditto Korea. Idiotic agreement in the first place.

It wasn't the alliance with South Vietnam that caused that war, it was the split-up. That doesn't occur there's no need for an alliance with a non-existent 'south'.

I love how you dictate U.S, foreign policy yet omit any revisions that would stabilize the internal situation in the U.S..

Sorry, but hamstring the U.S. and that'll leave the U.K. to take over the jobs....I'll pass thanks....

a reply to: nwtrucker

1) if you read my other posts I have repeatedly mentioned the fact the constitution needs tweaking to put the issues of power of the feds and states to bed one way of the other, personally I think more de centralised states rights are in order but its up to citizens of the USA.

2) im not dictating anything

3) no power that claims to be evolved and has the moral high ground should have the power to reap the destruction and mayhem the US has since 1965.

4) i have repeatedly on ATS made no secret the UK should adopt such restrictions on its forign policy as its just as bad and out of control as the US is!

5) far as im concerned the US and UK needs a good "hamstring " on its power to # the world up.

a reply to: crazyewok

OK, fair enough. Then who keeps Isis in line? Putin? Your hobby horse, NK? China's territorial expansion?

The U.N.?

IF those constitutional 'adjustment' were made as you 'suggest' then all the above have to do is NOT invade the U.S. (or the U.K.) or any actually direct allies...each other(?) and they, in essence, have carte blanche to any activity outside those parameters.

Come on, really? That would have Putin and China, et al, laughing their heads off....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Why do we need to keep ISIS in line? Let that region deal with it.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

OK, fair enough. Then who keeps Isis in line? Putin? Your hobby horse, NK? China's territorial expansion?

The U.N.?

IF those constitutional 'adjustment' were made as you 'suggest' then all the above have to do is NOT invade the U.S. (or the U.K.) or any actually direct allies...each other(?) and they, in essence, have carte blanche to any activity outside those parameters.

Come on, really? That would have Putin and China, et al, laughing their heads off....

1)isis have attacked the UK and France directly. So via the amendedments i suggested tge USA could take action against them if it so wished.

They have also threatend to attack the USA, which again constitutes a direct threat!

North Korea have threatend to NUKE the USA so that would again constitute a direct threat and so militarily action would be constitutional. If they invade south korea again thats attacking a US Ally!

If China cross the line with Japan or Taiwanthat again is a attack on a US ally and intervention would thus be constitutional.

2) if a country is NOT threatening the USA or attacking allies what hell is it the US buisness? Why does the USA have the moral high ground to be the arberture of right and wrong?

I repeat!
If a country refrains from #ing attacking the usa or a key ally what the hells buiness does the US of #ing A have to take military action?

Your troops are there to PROTECT the USA not romp around the world in jackboots #ing everything in sight up!

a reply to: nwtrucker

O an as for the "hoby horse NK" coment?

Your the one obsessed on bombing Iran who does not even have nukes.

Tge fact you dismiss a country that does not only have nukes but is also every other month threating to use them on the USA,Japan and south korea shows what a chicken hawk coward you really are.

You seem to crave war, death and destruction.
But not at those directly threatening you.....not if it may be hard
No only those you can beat with pure ease even if there "threat" status is debatable.

a reply to: Aazadan

Largely an example rather than "our job", so to speak.

The 'economic' socialists, also have and are letting the one-worlders bring Isis to us via the refugee issue. Up to 75K for this year and the Dems have requested 100K for 2016.

Besides when it's someone else's job- and it should be- we end up sucked in to the mess when it doesn't get done, usually when it's worse. Vietnam was French, 'protecting' their Michelin rubber plantations, delaying entry into WWII gave us a worse scenario to deal with than had we followed the Brits in at the same time in '39.

No matter how the Constitution is adjusted, and it won't be any time soon, it calls for adjudication and judgement. Hamstringing our Constitutional options will lead to more Constitutional violations.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick". "All options are on the table". .......

The right people is the solution. We've already legislated ourselves into a near abyss. This idea would make it worse.

a reply to: crazyewok

You go a little nuts on this subject. Perhaps more than a little.

For example, your adjustment would make it impossible to address 'your' NK issue. Did you think about that one??

You have a habit of call me names when this subject is broached. From afar. Whose the coward???

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

You go a little nuts on this subject. Perhaps more than a little.

For example, your adjustment would make it impossible to address 'your' NK issue. Did you think about that one??

You have a habit of call me names when this subject is broached. From afar. Whose the coward???

No it would not

The fact north korea have threatend repeatedly to nuke the west cost of the states alone would qualify militarily action via the amendedments I made as a "direct threat on the USA"

The fact it has sunk a south korean frigate in 2010 and only a month ago conducted a artillery bombardment of south korea would constitute a direct attack on a US allie.

Thirdly north korea is still at war with the USA as a peace treaty was never signed after the fighting in the 50's makeing the above points mute anyway.



Cant you read or something?

a reply to: nwtrucker

As for who is the coward?

Im not the one salivateing over bombing a country that has no nukes and no ability to really defend itself while letting a country that has a REAL stockpile of WMD threaten to use them on me and blackmail me.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: nwtrucker

And now you see why I don't take you and other extreme rightwingers seriously. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

You're comparing a man who wants universal healthcare for all Americans to a group that enslaves Kurdish women & teaches boys how to decapitate people. And the worse part is apparently these are valid comparisons for you.

hmmm....I think you would be safe to say this is a valid comparison for a lot of people...there is a pretty large minority on the right, that have been taught to think of liberals, as true vile creatures.

a reply to: crazyewok

I didn't see your post regarding 'threats', the verbal kind.

So now we're down to verbal comments, LMAO. So calling the U.S. the great Satan is acceptable, or merely political rhetoric?
How many times has China threatened the U.S. with war? More than NK!!

Both are rhetoric and NOT grounds for war.

In case you may have forgotten, the U.S. pressure on Iran have been financial, not military. We are not at war with Iran, are not threatening to go to war with them either.

We SHOULD have taught then a lesson, at the least, for supplying Iraqi insurgents with IEDs and the like. They are directly responsible for multiple U.S. deaths and casualties.

Don't like it? TOUGH!

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

Largely an example rather than "our job", so to speak.

The 'economic' socialists, also have and are letting the one-worlders bring Isis to us via the refugee issue. Up to 75K for this year and the Dems have requested 100K for 2016.

Besides when it's someone else's job- and it should be- we end up sucked in to the mess when it doesn't get done, usually when it's worse. Vietnam was French, 'protecting' their Michelin rubber plantations, delaying entry into WWII gave us a worse scenario to deal with than had we followed the Brits in at the same time in '39.

No matter how the Constitution is adjusted, and it won't be any time soon, it calls for adjudication and judgement. Hamstringing our Constitutional options will lead to more Constitutional violations.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick". "All options are on the table". .......

The right people is the solution. We've already legislated ourselves into a near abyss. This idea would make it worse.

US did the smartest thing waiting until 1941 before entering the war.

In 1939 your military was a understrength joke.
Japan and Germany would have hurt you bad and all you would of done is get in the way.

Hell even in 1941 was pushing it as you military struggled bad, very very badly in that opening year.
It wasnt until the end of 42 you could even handle the japs and not till mid to late 43 before the brits could stop holding your hand in africa.

Roosevelt was a smart smart man and did the smart thing to wait and give the US time to not only build its military up to a usefull level but also convert your industry to a war footing.

It was not until the end of 43 the USA took off in its own right.