Discussion for article #241730
“… and supports air strikes in Syria.”
Well that is a going to piss off some resident Sanders supporters who have been popping off like idiots about President Obama (and by extension Clinton) over Syria.
1 Like
So he is only a pacifist when his named gets called to fight?
Any President worth his salt would say the same thing. To think otherwise is beyond naive
1 Like
Yeah, I think a lot of Sanders supporters are going to tune that comment out. Or try to. I almost wanted to but on my internet radioactive websuit and wade on to FDL and watch the heads explode then.
1 Like
I thought about going to the great Orange Satan for a bit since their live blogging is far more prolific than the glacial one here at TPM, but thought better of it as well.
A pacifist would be against all wars as a matter of principle. Bernie stated clearly that he was not a pacifist, because he would resort to war as a last resort for self-defense.
Bernie could have played the “student deferment” game like Bill Clinton (“to preserve my political viability”), or sought out someone with connections to get a safe National Guard posting like Dubya. Instead, he registered as a conscientious objector; some of whom went to jail like Cassius Clay, AKA Muhammed Ali.
Snark and political preference aside, do you see any ethical differences among these three actions?
But Bernie , you would be sitting in the back office out of harms way .
I don’t know if I can answer ethically. One can argue, as I assume Sanders’ supporters do, that being forthcoming and declaring yourself a conscientious objector is the high road.
But by that same token, isn’t there validity in the argument that it creates an ethical dilemma for someone campaigning to be Commander in Chief, who is literally stating “I am ready to take this country to war”, which by its very nature commits thousands of others to battle, when you yourself were unwilling to go?
So far me, I think each of those paths presents an ethical as well as a political trade off.
1 Like