Would a President who is a a conscientious objector be able to commit troops to a war?

[still_one]

14 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	12 (86%)
	No
	1 (7%)
	Don't Know
	1 (7%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[daleanime]

1. Because we all know.....

War is good.

And feel free to tell me about 'necessary evils', I won't be listening but please enjoy yourself.

[yeoman6987]

4. War is not good, but if someone literally bombed Chicago

From a country that we had concrete proof did it and not some group of various individuals then the president has an obligation to fight back no matter personal beliefs. But it would have to be known that the government from said country orchestrated it completely.

[still_one]

8. the question implied nothing of the sort. however, when the U.S. was attacked during

At Pearl Harbor, wouldn't that be an example where a country should engage in a war, at a minimum I mum for defensive purposes

[Trajan]

128. As long as you recognize and admit

That a bona fide Democratic Socialist, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he who brought the New Deal that Bernie Sanders is trying to preserve, met the enemy in a bold and victorious effort to rid the world of a fascist scourge ...

So yes, Democratic Socialists can and will prosecute war when the need arises ...

Now you can sleep at night ...

[MADem]

134. The poll question wasn't in reference to any political party, it was in reference to CO's.

FWIW, Roosevelt had no problem with the military, ever--he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson. He had a long relationship with the US Navy, and was quite fond of them, as he was all of the Armed Services.

I mean, if you're going to start comparing people you might understand that one guy applied for CO status and the other was an ASN well before the New Deal, and well before WW2.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. A POTUS takes an Oath

to protect and defend the country. Citizens do not.

[still_one]

10. a good point, then the answer from that perspective would be yes

[MohRokTah]

72. No, they don't any oath like that whatsoever. Read the constitution.

From Article II., Section 1, Paragraph 8 of the United States Constitution:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

They swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". They do not swear to protect and defend the country.

A CO could NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES take that oath to mean use of military force, by the very legal definition of "Conscientious Objector".

[still_one]

82. If a foreign power attacks the U.S., wouldn't that be an attack against the Constitution of the U.S.

[MohRokTah]

85. If a president is willing to take that as the meaing of the oath, then they cannot be a CO.

For a Conscientious Objector to interpret the oath that way would be a direct contradiction of the legal definition of "Conscientious Objector".

[still_one]

107. got it, thanks

[in_cog_ni_to]

108. I knew that

Thanks for the correction.

I highly doubt any person serving as President would sit by and do nothing if this country was ever attacked again. That's just not going to happen. Would someone who was granted CO status even want to be President, knowing there's always a threat of war? Would a CO even be eligible to run for President? I don't know and am not in the mood to Google.

[MohRokTah]

111. A CO could certainly be eligible to be president.

I doubt if they would want to given the nature of the job.

I think Dennis Kucinich was the closest thing to a CO who would have tried since he stated on Bill Maher's show that as president he would take the military option off the table for all international negotiations.

[BlueJazz]

3. Probably but seems to me she/he would devote more thought to the action (s) ?

[HappyPlace]

5. Progressives bashing THE progressive candidate for objecting to war.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. It's all they've got n/t

[still_one]

77. Is this an unfair question, and why would it be?

[Trajan]

131. I have been erasing those who would use such a specious argument

Such an antagonizing assertion that is false at its core ... I've been dumping them into my ignore list ...

Why should you be any different?

And just like THAT - This kind of bullshit disappears ...

Why should I not place such a scoundrel on ignore?

EDIT: This was directed at the OP, sorry

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. Hitler fought bravely in the trenches of WW1

He didn't take the easy way out but joined proudly to the German army unlike people who were against the war.



and went on to lead a great nation to.............



Come on all you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again......

[HERVEPA]

11. And it's 1,2,3,4

[still_one]

13. except that wasn't the question, but feel free to start your own subthread

[Ichingcarpenter]

44. Would a candidate who was in the Air National Guard

bankrupt this country morally and socially by starting a senseless illegal war?

[still_one]

49. Again not the question. It requires a simple answer, and I would expect, as most have responded

in this poll that the answer would be a president who was Conscientious Objector would have no problem doing what was necessary to protect the country if attacked.

The Iraq war was illegal, so was the Viet Nam war, both based on lies, which again is not what the question was poising.

[Ichingcarpenter]

51. Its a stupid hypothetical

I proved my point......its up to the individual in charge and the fictionally scenario you are trying to push.

[Warren Stupidity]

137. that's not the way it works here.

You don't own the discussion, we can take your candidate for The Daily Horseshit any way we want. On the other hand if you feel it is not going the way you like, if you feel like your Grand OP is bleeding out, you can self delete and put it out of its misery.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. ain't no time to wonder why....(NSFW)

[MohRokTah]

39. Objecting to A war is not the same as objecting to ALL war.

You are comparing apples to fish.

[Ichingcarpenter]

45. “There has never been a just war, never an honorable one--

The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly,

'It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.'

Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but do not dare say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open.

Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”


― Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger and Other Stories

[MohRokTah]

47. So if China developed technology where they are capable...

of moving 400,000 troops onto US soil to begin fighting without being detected, you would object to fighting back?

If so, cool, you qualify as a CO, and I could never vote for you to hold any federal office.

[Ichingcarpenter]

48. So if Aliens attack us and move their ground troops in

and if God was a dog..........

and Butts could talk and if

[MohRokTah]

50. Objecting to ANY war under ANY circumstance...

is not the same thing as objecting to specific wars under specific circumstances.

I support taking action in Afghanistan and believe that was right to this day.

I opposed taking action against Iraq and believe that was right to this day.

But if there is even a single hypothetical situation where you would would be willing to go to war, you are not a conscientious objector.

A CO would have opposed fighting Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

A CO would have opposed declaring war on Germany after Germany declared war on the US.

A CO would have not fought the British in the War for Independence, even if the British soldiers shot his family dead in front of his eyes.

[Ichingcarpenter]

53. How many friends have you buried?

Me......... way too many.....

Now you want to use a time machine?

Oh good........ the subterranean morlocks and the surface dwelling eloi battle for earth.

[still_one]

54. Did you object to the U.S. involvement in WWII is a better question, after they were attacked?

[Ichingcarpenter]

55. Did you object to the U.S. involvement in the Spanish American War?

Your original supposition is still void.

[MohRokTah]

89. You are completely missing the legal definition of CO

A CO would object to both wars.

[Ichingcarpenter]

112. I'm not missing shit........the supposition is shit

Tell me from what US legal code or US statue you are quoting from? ........... on the legal definition of a CO.

I"m trying to keep you busy so you can have something to do with your life.

[MohRokTah]

113. Durhaime's Law Dictionary

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/ConscientiousObjector.aspx

Conscientious Objector Definition:

Someone with a firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, by reason or religious, moral or ethical training and belief.

If there is any exception whatsoever, you are not a conscientious objector. Go to the link and look at the language from several SCOTUS opinions, too.

[boston bean]

123. Well, Bernie obviously doesn't subscribe the the "bearing of arms" portion, that's for sure. nt

[MohRokTah]

130. Yep, there is no way in hell Bernie Sanders is a CO.

So the points trying to be made about that are moot.

I could never ever vote for a CO as president. I'd be forced to vote for a Republican over a Democratic CO, and I don't ever want to do that.

[MohRokTah]

115. Also, look at the military guidelines

http://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/topic/conscientious-objection-discharge

Current military policy has defined conscientious objection as the following: “A firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, by reason of religious training and/or belief.” (DOD 1300.6)

“In Any Form”

This means that you must be opposed to all real war at this point in time. Those who object to a particular war would be called “selective conscientious objectors” and they do not qualify as conscientious objectors under current US law. If you believe in “Just War Theory”, held by many religious traditions, then to be a conscientious objector under the current legal definition you would have to apply the theory and conclude that there is no just war.

To qualify for discharge from the military you must show that you do, in fact, conscientiously object to participating in war, and that your beliefs have changed, or “crystallized” since you joined the military. If you believe you might fall within this definition, read on.

[Ichingcarpenter]

116. OK now look up the legal definition of law

as defined by the constitution on what war is and how its declared and then find the last time when one that fit that definition......

On this Thursday afternoon.......

[MohRokTah]

117. .

[Warren Stupidity]

138. they have a MEGA-TRANSPORTER?

Holy Shit!

I didn't know that.

[MADem]

41. So....what are you saying? Harry Truman is the same as Hitler?

http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2014/5/26/fdr-truman-and-eisenhower-in-world-war-i#.Vd8w3PZViko=

[Ichingcarpenter]

46. So Harry Truman is George W Bush ?

What wars are you for Mad? How many have you buried?

[MADem]

91. I am not a conscientious objector, if that's your question. I'd prefer to not

go to war at all, but I am not stupid, nor am I naive. I've read my Clausewitz.

Not everyone feels the way you do, least of all nations who would find us easy pickings should we be led by someone who, if a genuine CO (and that WAS the question posed) would never, under any circumstances, resort to war, even in the face of invasion.

Take your What wars are you for Mad? How many have you buried?
goading and baiting elsewhere. You've shown yourself to be incapable of adult discussion with those cheap shot comments.

[Ichingcarpenter]

103. You are the brave one

Having served so many key board battles

I salute you Madam..........

[MADem]

132. First you call me a murderer, next, you call me a keyboard warrior and a "Madam."

Your petty, characterizing insults, while directed at me, tell everyone so very much about you--more, perhaps, than you realize.

You are the brave one
View profile
Having served so many key board battles

I salute you Madam..........

Because "Real Liberals" always lead with slurs.....?

[Ichingcarpenter]

133. Well alrighty then

Told me off I guess

LOL..............

[MADem]

135. I think you did that all by yourself. nt

[SheilaT]

7. What conscientious objecter is running for President?

A person who was very strongly CO, would have trouble getting anywhere in the nominating process. This is the sort of hypothetical question that seems to make no sense at all.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. Sen. Sanders applied for CO during VietNam

Therefore he must be attacked by "liberals" on this board today.


Makes sense, right?

[still_one]

19. this is not an attack. it is a simple question, and the answer is simple too, yes, for

defensive purposes

Anyone attacked has a right to defend themselves, and that goes would be what 99% of conscientious objectors would subscribe to

[Motown_Johnny]

20. It looks like an attempt to discredit him

and to claim he is not a credible choice for Commander In Chief.

There have been similar threads posted. Phrasing this one as a question is an attempt to not have the thread hidden, as some others have been.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251550285

[MohRokTah]

43. If his CO application had been accepted, I'd be the first to say no way in hell would I vote for him

Even if he won the nomination, there is no way in hell I could ever vote for a CO for the office of president.

That his application WAS rejected is a perfect example that he would take a thoughtful approach to use of troops.

He obviously objected to the Vietnam War on moral grounds. That's good.

Had he been a true CO, he would object to any war under any circumstances. Keep in mind, this includes if another nation invades and has hundreds of thousands of troop in US soil. A CO would still refuse to fight such a war.

[still_one]

100. If you are referring to Bernie, by that definition, he is not a "true CO" then. He supported

sending troops to Kosovo, and did not opposed our engagement in Afghanistan.

In my view, your perspective is one of the best I have read, and actually is quite consistent

[MohRokTah]

101. OR at least he is not a CO now. eom

[still_one]

106. good points. I learned something from this thread

[still_one]

98. No, it is a simple question, one that may come up. None of the leading republicans that are leading

in the polls for the republican party, have served in the military. Linsey Graham has, and a couple of others, but they aren't even in the top 6.

Is it a fair question to ask anyone who is running for commander in chief to be asked their opinion on committing troops.

Bernie voted for committing troops in Kosovo, and did not oppose U.S. intervention in Afghanistan. So I would suspect that he would answer there would be occurrences where it was necessary.

Bernie will have no problem answering these questions, and all the candidates probably will be asked, so if nothing else, it gives people something to think about. Supporters can clarify the position of their candidate with a reasoned response, which is a good thing

[cali]

24. depend on the individual, does it not?

Sorry, your op fails not only the logic test but the sniff test.

[still_one]

104. The OP is simply a poll. I suggest you read this response, if you are looking for good basis on

this issue for your candidate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=550569

Incidentally, Bernie is NOT a Conscientious Objector. He supported sending troops into Kosovo, and did not object to the U.S. engagement in Afghanistan.

That is how you defend your candidates position. Bernie would have no problem answering this question

[MohRokTah]

31. To obtain CO status, you must object ot any war under any circumstance.

Even if attacked, you would be unwilling to fight a war in order to obtain CO status.

The standard you have set for CO is not what is required to be classified as a CO.

[MADem]

42. You are correct, and anyone trying to parse the issue or place blame on you for being accurate

should review their understanding of CO status.

You can't pick and choose.

[arcane1]

88. Vietnam wasn't self-defense. You left out the fact that he was a CO for THAT war.

I like him even better now, knowing that.

[stevenleser]

90. There is no such thing as being "a CO for THAT war".

You are either a C.O., and that goes for all wars and killing, or you aren't.

[arcane1]

94. But he didn't just wake up one day and try it. Our massive war crime inspired him n/t

[stevenleser]

95. He objected to a war, he is not a Conscientious Objector. Here is the legal definition

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/ConscientiousObjector.aspx

[arcane1]

97. Got it. Thanks for the link! n/t

[MohRokTah]

29. His application was REJECTED.

Bernie Sanders was no CO. It's an extremely high standard to be a CO and a CO MUST object to ALL WAR under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, even if our nation was directly attacked.

[Motown_Johnny]

33. All I said was that he applied.

Sorry if I upset you. I didn't mean to.

[MohRokTah]

36. You didn't upset me.

I was setting the record straight.

There are no Conscientious Objectors running for president.

[Motown_Johnny]

37. ok, thanks .. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

139. oh. The horrible shit war of the 60's and early 70's? That War?

Hey kids: we all did what we could to stay the fuck out of that mess. It was a shit war that made the Iraq War look like a minor diversion from our regularly scheduled broadcast. We killed 2,000,000 or so Vietnamese. For nothing. For none of our fucking business. Oh and it was a real blast having 300 or so of our own come back dead every week. For nothing. For none of our fucking business.

This is a Progressive Democratic message board?

Are you fucking shitting me?

[still_one]

15. not necessarily. a conscientious objector would not have an issue engaging for defensive purposes

[MohRokTah]

40. Actually, yes they would.

A CO objects to ALL wars under ANY circumstances, even to defend your own nation.

That is the legal standard.

That is also why the vast majority of CO applications are rejected.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. I'm sure it would be a last resort, as it should be, but Yes. n/t

[still_one]

16. I think so too, and for defensive purposes if attacked

[Motown_Johnny]

18. Vietnam was a different story. Anyone who didn't object

would be suspect in my book.

We could bring up Bill's actions during Vietnam, but I honestly don't think any of this is relevant to picking our nominee.

[still_one]

21. Vietnam Nam was based on a lie. that is not a good example in regard to the question i

Was poising.

I am really talking about an action based on an attack on the US, not a lie

[Motown_Johnny]

22. Your timing is suspect.

Why bring up this line of inquiry right when there are other discussions about Sen. Sanders applying for CO during Vietnam?

[Bluenorthwest]

34. But that IS the question you are posing. Your OP is obviously about Sanders and the objection was

to the Vietnam War, which was based on a lie and which Bill Clinton avoided as did many many Americans of great honor and valor. My father was an early volunteer for WW2, he did not want me to go to Vietnam even if drafted, chew on that and try to spit it out. That war was wrong, the ability to discern right from wrong is very important in a President.

[stevenleser]

68. See my #32 below. The OP accidentally asked a much more interesting question than they realized.

A conscientious objector according to US Law means someone who is completely opposed to all wars and killing as immoral and unacceptable in any circumstance and there is ample caselaw all the way to the SCOTUS that confirms this.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/ConscientiousObjector.aspx

[TBF]

80. And I would feel much more comfortable

with a president who considers war only as a last resort. Not one that views war as a revenue source.

[stevenleser]

23. It would be fascinating to see him answer this question. It's a relevant one and there are

many followup ones to answer that should be put to all candidates.

Would you go after ISIS and in what way?

Do you think Afghanistan a valid war to fight? Was it fought properly?

Same questions for Iraq?

etc.

[cali]

27. he's answered it by making it clear that he does not, across the board,

oppose committing troops.

[stevenleser]

28. I'd like to see him and all candidates answer the followup questions I asked to more completely

understand his position. The answer you cite is a non-answer.

[stevenleser]

35. Also, see my #32 below. If he was a C.O., it means he said he can never support a war due to

his beliefs.

It's entirely possible his opinion has changed, but I think he needs to more fully explain that.

[boston bean]

124. maybe he never really was a conscientious objector even though he applied to be one.

that seems more plausible, no?

The guy funds war, votes for some wars, and has no problem with the 2A (bearing arms).

I would think many people tried to go this route to avoid serving in Viet Nam.

[still_one]

73. You are right, it is a valid question.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Would be able to? Yes. Would he? I hope not.

[MohRokTah]

56. If someone is willing to commit troops, they are not a conscientious objector.

That's the legal standard.

A CO refuses any engagement in any war under any circumstances. By definition, if somebody is willing to commit troops, they cannot be a conscientious objector. They must be completely pacifist in any situation with regards to war, and a willingness to commit troops is a direct contradiction to that standard.

[MohRokTah]

26. I would never in my life vote for a conscientious objector for president of the US. NEVER

Since there are no actual conscientious objectors running, I've got no problems.

Bernie Sanders applied for CO during Vietnam, but it was rejected. Bernie Sanders was NOT a CO. Objecting to the Vietnam War is not enough to be a CO.

Real Conscientious Objectors object to all war under any circumstances, thus an actual CO as president would be a suicidal move.

I could vote for a CO for any political office other than any federal office. I would prefer a thoughtful approach to potential war, and a CO would be incapable of such a thoughtful approach. A CO would be against any war, even if the US was directly attacked by another nation.

[mmonk]

30. Sure. Some COs where so to avoid wars not necessary.

[stevenleser]

32. That is not a Conscientious Objector according to the US legal definition.

A Conscientious Objector is against all wars, period, due to strongly held belief.

You don't get to pick and choose. See here for three case references, two of which are Supreme Court cases.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/ConscientiousObjector.aspx

[still_one]

59. There should be no problem protecting ones self or a country if you are President for defensive

purposes. A person being a CO does not mean they won't protect themselves or their country

[stevenleser]

64. A true C.O. would rather a foreign invader be invited to take over the country without a shot.

And yes there are folks like that.

[still_one]

71. What you are describing is a pacifist, and I do not believe they are the same.

[MohRokTah]

76. Under the law, they are. eom

[stevenleser]

78. A C.O., by legal definition, is an extreme and absolute pacifist.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/ConscientiousObjector.aspx

[still_one]

109. Thanks, appreciate the information

[MohRokTah]

38. WOW, it appears 90% of the responders have no idea what a conscientious objector really is.

Anybody who did not vote NO has no idea about the standards for being a CO.

A CO president could never commit troops to any war, regardless of the circumstances.

[still_one]

57. Not true. If the U.S. was attacked, based on the oath the President took, he would do whatever was

necessary to protect the U.S., including military force.

Being a CO does not mean you won't defend yourself or the country if you are President

[MohRokTah]

60. If somebody is willing to uphold their oath with the use of troops, then by definition, they were..

NEVER a Conscientious Objector.

End of story. One cannot be willing to commit troops to combat action and simultaneously be a conscientious objector. The willingness to commit troops is a direct contradiction to the very definition of "Conscientious Objector".

[stevenleser]

62. Exactly. nt

[still_one]

63. That is your definition.

[stevenleser]

65. No, it's not our definition. It is the legal definition in the US. nt

[still_one]

69. Bernie Sanders supported troops in Kosovo. He also did not support the vote in Congress to oppose

the war in Afghanistan.

So I would point out, that his reported CO status is not consistent

[stevenleser]

74. Excellent information. That raises more questions.

One of which is, when he applied to be a C.O., did he say that he is against all wars and killing as would be required for that status? Or was he rejected because he did not say that.

If he did say at the time that he objected to all war and killing, when did it change and why? Obviously it had changed by Kosovo. But I would be interested to hear how he came to change such a moral absolutist position on war.

[MohRokTah]

79. Bernie Sanders was NEVER a CO

His application for CO status was rejected.

[stevenleser]

84. Right but what did he say in that application and why was it rejected.

I seem to remember anecdotally that most applications for C.O. status were reflexively rejected (because there were so many of them) and had to be appealed.

[MohRokTah]

87. I'd like to know the aswer to that.

If he truly claimed to oppose all wars in all circumstances, I'd like to know when he altered his deeply held beliefs.

[MohRokTah]

67. No, that is the LEGAL defintion

A CO objects to all war under any circumstances.

A CO CANNOT commit troops if in a position to do so.

This is the law in the US. If you are willing to fight a war under any hypothetical situation, you are not a CO.

[stevenleser]

61. I don't think that's right. A true C.O. objects to all war and killing as unacceptable.

I don't see how someone like that would agree to commit troops to a conflict.

[stevenleser]

58. I had almost forgotten at first until mmonk's above post said unnecessary wars. It jogged my memory

of the legal definition.

And it makes the OP Poll a very good question. If Sanders applied for C.O. status, did he say that he objects to all wars? I know his application was rejected but why was it rejected.

[whatchamacallit]

52. Fuck War!

And fuck corporate warmongers and our endless wars of opportunity. I trust Bernie would do the right thing when faced with a real threat. I trust Hillary to do what's beneficial for the pigs at the trough.

[BlueCaliDem]

66. Yes. But he'll be seen as a hypocrite and a coward for it.

No personal skin in the game so... ...what the hell.

[stevenleser]

70. If we are talking about Sanders, it would depend on what his application for C.O. status actually

said and if it said that he objects to all war and killing as would be necessary to be a C.O., does he explain that his position has changed since then.

But this OP is very interesting. Much more interesting than I realized at first.

[BlueCaliDem]

93. As far as I know, Sanders is the only C.O. running. Also, he supports P.B.O.'s use of drones,

so I don't know if he's such a pacifist and against all war and all killing. Drones, as we know, do kill, and he supports and has voted for that program.

Again, he's not as anti-war as his supporters would like to believe.

See at 0:55

[Trajan]

129. Nobody called FDR a coward ...

So, why would you?

[Vinca]

75. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who refused to commit troops to war?

[stevenleser]

81. Depends which war. Iraq? Sure. WWII? Absolutely not. nt

[Vinca]

92. It's a moot point since Congress can declare war, but the President can't.

That said, we'd be in deep trouble if another WWII happened. This Congress is so spineless they'd go on recess before debating a war.

[MohRokTah]

83. In this world? NO WAY! eom

[Ichingcarpenter]

96. We haven't had a constitutional legal war since WW2 just so called police action

War on poverty, war on inflation, war on Christmas, ......and my favorite... war on terrorism.........

but instead we have police actions in various, numerous places around the world.

The next president will have to decide where and when we shall send troops worldwide, in harms way for what purpose and whose purpose and interests? We are an Empire now and Wars now are called many things these day but never just to mankind.

[sanatanadharma]

86. Fascinating question. The president's defense...

... those rifra religious freedom laws the regressives so love.
A President who is a a conscientious objector would be able to refuse to commit troops to a war.
Love it!!!!!!!

[Hoyt]

99. I think Sanders would be a good CIC. Problem is, I think the majority of voters will doubt that.

The GOP, and many Independents, will exploit his supposed weakness against terrorists.

As to anyone who voted to give bush the authority to use force IF NECESSARY -- I think most voted to support the Prez after the 9/11 attack. I think most thought bush would be more thoughtful in deciding if he needed to use that force. I also think it was easy to vote against the IWR when it was clear it was going to pass. Point is, I can't get upset because Clinton, or most other good Democrats, voted for the IWR. I can get upset with the lying, murdering bush, and GOP warmongers, who misused that authority.

[stevenleser]

114. Just as important, I think people like Putin and Kim Jong Un doubt that.

I think as Putin survey's the US 2016 political landscape, knowing him he has determined that Sanders is a pushover, and Trump is an overconfident fool. I think he thinks he would totally be able to run circles around Trump and that Sanders would not stand up to him.

[DBoon]

102. Wasn't Richard Nixon a Quaker?

proof right there

[stevenleser]

110. All that proves is that he likely wasn't an observant Quaker.

I doubt Quaker's go in much for lying and cheating either but Nixon managed to do a whole lot of those things.

[HassleCat]

105. A more interesting question

Would a president who is a chickenhawk be more or less willing to manufacture phony evidence to start a bogus war? If yes, would this be a one-time incident, something so horrifying we would never repeat it? Or would it be a template for a successor president to follow if he or she wanted to be "a wartime president?" OK, that's more than one question.

[ladjf]

118. Dumb and disingenuous question. nt

[ancianita]

119. The presidency's responsibilities provide the context to necessarily "evolve." Sanders would.

[NowSam]

120. I think a CO would evolve on the issue to truly provide for the common defense & welfare

of the nation. Many candidates evolve. I believe HRC has evolved on many issues.

BESIDES, Bernie was not a CO.

Besides, that was 45 years ago. Who is the same person after 45 years? Don't people grow and change?

Besides, War is hell.

Time for peace. Time to come together. Time to get along and save the world instead of destroying it.

[still_one]

121. I think you are right

[HereSince1628]

122. Obviously that would depend on the nature of his/her conscientious objection.

I was convinced Vietnam couldn't be justified on moral grounds.

I have the same birthday, in different years, with William Jefferson Clinton. He arranged dodges, but as luck played out in the lottery he didn't get tested.

My number was low enough to force me into decision making. I went ahead and volunteered for military service because I felt it immoral to pass that call onto someone else.

Which of us was not conscientous? I think that's a tortured question.

[beam me up scottie]

125. Bernie's not against committing troops if necessary but only as a last resort.

[AllFieldsRequired]

126. Isnt the right question who would you rather have, someone who wants to commit troops at the

drop of a hat, i.e. ALL cons or someone who doesnt, i.e. ALL dems.

[djean111]

127. There is another OP right now titled "Bernie Sanders: Silent partner of American militarism"....

Don't people coordinate this stuff any more?
This is like Oscar Madison throwing spaghetti at the wall, to see if it sticks.

[Spirochete]

136. Would the beliefs

of a true CO prohibit him from even running, considering what the job might possibly entail?

[Warren Stupidity]

140. Thank for sharing The Daily Horseshit. nt.

[reddread]

141. patience my ass

I'm gonna kill something? War, especially the way we wage it is a crime. The very worst.