Originally Posted by ethanm
And this is relevant to today how? You have one party who has all but promised taking us back to war and that is unacceptable in my book.
Originally Posted by Gibonius
There is a rational point about holding avoiding necessary conflicts in the future ahead of unnecessary past conflicts.
Hillary will take us back to war. Agree with pio that if Sanders was the guy, I could buy it. Certainly there is Paul on the R side too.
I just don't see any justification on what makes you think the D's keeping us out of unnecessary wars any more than the R's. Clinton got us involved in Kosvo and others. Obama hasn't pulled out of the middle east like he said, and we certainly got more involved in places like Syria and Egypt. War is the health of the state, and on average, I think both parties are pretty equally interested in keeping us in a perpetual state of war.
Edit: I'll put money on it today. If Hillary is elected, we will deploy more soldiers to a Middle Eastern country in her tenure. I don't know if it will by Syria or back to Iraq or Iran.