If you love unwinnable, endless wars, you'll love Cruz as President!

Here are a few of the wars Cruz would immediately launch if elected:

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/29253-all-the-wars-and-coups-of-president-ted-cruz

Hey War Hero! ... This guy thinks just like you!

Ted Cruz will become President only after Michelle Bachman is elected President and has sex with her husband......which means that Ted Cruz will never be President.

Well you messiah said we were leaving Astan, then withdrew nearly all the troops...now yesterday, we are staying....

Cruz is a loon but what's the difference between him saying he would bomb (when we know it's not going to happen) and Obama actually authorizing bombing missions? The difference would be actual bombs fell - not empty rhetoric.

Countries bombed by Obama directive:

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria

And there are suggestions he authorized an attack in the Philippines too.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/25/ryan-lizza/lizza-says-obama-has-bombed-more-nations-bush/

Being commander in chief means that you must protect all Americans even if the tactical decisions to do the same are against your personal and political philosophies. Problems develop when a person believes that war must be expanded, and that the decision melds personal and job responsibilities into jingoistic war exportation. I think history will judge America's transition to pinpoint military responses more favorably than clumsy invasions of other sovereign countries, but in that judgment it can never be forgotten that in FACT these are BOTH acts of war.

What Senator Cruz says matters little. He will never be President of the United States, nor is that his purpose in running. His purpose is to move the debate further right and allow the propaganda machine to forestall real positive change in America where income disparity and median income stagnation are addressed.

2seaoat wrote:Being commander in chief means that you must protect all Americans even if the tactical decisions to do the same are against your personal and political philosophies.  

Either you think it's right or it's wrong.

You said this in another thread: "Iran, Iraq, and Afghanastan pose NO threat to the United States or our critical strategic interests. When they do, I will buy into a response."

Can't have it both ways.

Mistakes: Bush invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mistakes: Obama's adventurism in Libya, Syria, Pakistan and continued participation in Iraq/Afghanistan. (Let's not forget the troops he has chasing around after Boko Harem too)

The fact remains the entire mideast is a cesspool of ignorance and corruption and it's past time that we stop throwing troops lives and money at the problem. We aren't going to change a thing over there.

Yes, you can have it both ways and a hundred ways beyond that simple analysis without committing American troops to the middle east. There are hundreds of actions which can further the goals of stopping terrorism which does not involve military invasions. The cost benefit analysis is not black or white, and it is hardly simple.

Now to the simplistic black and white, morality of either it is right or wrong. Hardly. Was it wrong for Ike to see 10k Americans die in a month in the invasion of Europe. Do you think he did not know the reality of what he was committing these kids lives. Was his decision a simple right or wrong answer or in reality a multi layered process of decision making which tried to maximize the benefits against the costs of winning that war. When President Obama through his chain of command of the military targets precisely enemies using drones and airstrikes, this most certainly is a military action whose cost and benefit may be debated, but even with horrible collateral damage it is but a fraction of the cost in lives and resources where invasion by American troops is the policy choice. Pragmatic solutions are the antithesis of modern Republican policies where government is seen as evil, and all policies must be impeded. Again the black and white analysis is simplistic and sophomoric.