Sanders backs Obama on ISIS

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sanders isn't creating any daylight on foreign policy between himself and Hillary Clinton.  He presumably wants to run a domestic policy-themed campaign:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/217383-sanders-backs-obama-plan-but-warns-of-risks

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems he has some reservations.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The idea of trying to find "moderate" non Kurdish rebels to support is ridiculously idiotic. Those weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists.  The vote for this first class idiocy passed the House 273-156.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll507.xml

So much for Obama being against stupid wars. This will not go well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm a little confused here. It looks like Sanders was one of 22 nays on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/world/middleeast/senate-approves-isis-bill-avoiding-bigger-war-debate.html


Roll call:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00270

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm a little confused here. It looks like Sanders was one of 22 nays on this.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00270

He was for it before he was against it?

Maybe he realized how dumb an idea it was before the vote came up.

Here are the nays. An odd collection, I must say. A lot of the Democrats (and Sanders) are the more liberal Senators, but there's Manchin. And Begich isn't that liberal. As for the 12 Republicans, a lot of the are tea partiers, but Heller isn't.

Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Brown (D-OH)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heller (R-NV)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
Moran (R-KS)
Murphy (D-CT)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Warren (D-MA)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rand and Sanders support striking ISIS but the sticking point, as for many observers, is arming the Syrian rebels. Sanders sounded like he was open to being convinced on arming the rebels but in the end Obama didn't make the sale.

I think most people are fine with going after in ISIS in Iraq.

A lot of people would be fine with bombing ISIS in Syria and arming the Syrian Kurds.

But arming al-Nusra and its allies is just retarded.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rand and Sanders support striking ISIS but the sticking point, as for many observers, is arming the Syrian rebels. Sanders sounded like he was open to being convinced on arming the rebels but in the end Obama didn't make the sale.

I think most people are fine with going after in ISIS in Iraq.

A lot of people would be fine with bombing ISIS in Syria and arming the Syrian Kurds.

But arming al-Nusra and its allies is just retarded.

That's like saying a lot of people are fine with removing a flat tire, but installing a new one is retarded. What's the end game of bomb, bomb, bomb? Bombing things isn't going to fix anything without an idea of who you want to be in charge. Progressives should know better than this.

LOL, I listed a lot of things that can be done to go after ISIS without arming al-Nusra and their allies.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rand and Sanders support striking ISIS but the sticking point, as for many observers, is arming the Syrian rebels. Sanders sounded like he was open to being convinced on arming the rebels but in the end Obama didn't make the sale.

I think most people are fine with going after in ISIS in Iraq.

A lot of people would be fine with bombing ISIS in Syria and arming the Syrian Kurds.

But arming al-Nusra and its allies is just retarded.

That's like saying a lot of people are fine with removing a flat tire, but installing a new one is retarded. What's the end game of bomb, bomb, bomb? Bombing things isn't going to fix anything without an idea of who you want to be in charge. Progressives should know better than this.

LOL, I listed a lot of things that can be done to go after ISIS without arming al-Nusra and their allies.

I don't think there was ever any discussion of arming Nusra Front.

@Deus: http://time.com/author/sen-rand-paul/

So we will merely arm the fellow Wahabbi jihadist allies of Al Nusra? That's so much better. Look, the Kurds are the only actual moderates in Syria.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I've heard a lot of things about the FSA, but not that they were either Wahabbi or Jihadi.

And the problem with the Kurds is that they will only fight in the far Northern areas of Syria, the parts that are actually Kurdish. And asking them to fight significantly outside of Kurdish Syria is a literal disaster waiting to happen.

FSA was just some phony western friendly front of a generally jihadist terrorist side of the war, and they are probably fighting Assad more than ISIS.

As for the Syrian Kurds, a lot of them aren't fighting in Syria at all. 60,000 just fled from ISIS into Turkey.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-takes-over-syria-kurdish-villages-as-thousands-flee-to-turkey-1.2772850

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Eh, they're still around and significant, but getting weaker because both Assad and ISIS are targeting them (and meanwhile keeping an unofficial ceasefire between them).

The same problem with the Syrian Kurds goes to Iraqi Kurds... if they push too far beyond Kurdish territory, then all sorts of sectarian complications come up. Plus the Kurds are not interested in much right now except keeping ISIS out of Kurdistan. Ultimately it will take a semi-competent Iraqi army to clear up ISIS in Iraq, and united front to rid Syria of ISIS.

The Kurdish forces aren't exclusively Kurdish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.firatnews.com/news/news/arabs-join-kurdish-militia-in-aleppo.htm