See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Ted Cruz Is The Frontrunner For The Republican Nomination
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/katherinemiller/cruuuuuuuuz#.bt3qarb5Q
Published: Mar 28, 2015
Author: Katherine Miller
Post Date: 2015-03-28 04:30:39 by Abraham
Keywords: None
Views: 667
Comments: 53
The next week will involve a lot of talking about the “wide open” contest for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, about the strong field, about whether the strong field is irretrievably damaged, about how there isn’t a clear frontrunner. This isn’t true. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — the true outsider, the tribune of the grassroots, the ruthless lawyer — is the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination. This is not trolling. This is serious. Conservatives vote in Republican primaries. And Cruz is really good at talking to conservatives. Even his enemies will concede Cruz is smart. And his resume is strong — Princeton and Harvard Law School; success at the highest level of American law; serious jobs in federal and state government; and an underdog Senate victory in 2012. The strikes against Cruz as a Republican candidate usually run something like this: He doesn’t poll well; the shutdown freaked people out; he can be grim; he’s not well-regarded among Senate Republicans. Cruz, who quickly replaced Jim DeMint as the most hated man on Capitol Hill, has been underestimated for what is basically a credential: Even Republicans in Washington hate him. Let’s work through the rest of this like a geometric proof. Yes, in the first big Iowa poll last month, Cruz trailed some other Republican contenders. But more than a year before the Iowa caucuses, presidential polls are just tests of name recognition. And so they tell us one thing: The Democratic field is very closed; the Republican field is very open. That’s it. Mitt Romney polls very well for that reason — high name recognition in a field of parity. There’s actually a much more important poll number out of Iowa, one that’s much more telling about the voters there, and bodes better for Cruz than anyone else considering a run for president. Check out, from this weekend’s big Des Moines Register poll, the top reason voters say Joni Ernst is worth voting for: No single issue has united Republicans more for five years now. No one — not Rand Paul, not Marco Rubio, certainly not Chris Christie, who expanded Medicaid under Obamacare — has fought Obamacare’s implementation in a more demonstrated way than Cruz. Clearly, he shut down the government in a ridiculous, nonstarter effort to “defund” the law. On Sunday, Cruz told the Washington Post that Republicans should “pursue every means possible to repeal Obamacare.” Merits of the shutdown past and reconciliation future aside, dismantling Obamacare has been the core issue of Cruz’s political career — he ran on it in his Senate bid. This was his pitch in 2012: “I’m not running as a lawyer. I’m running as a fighter.” The portfolio has to go beyond Obamacare, though. And based on the speeches Cruz has been giving lately, here’s the kind of pitch Cruz is probably going to make to conservatives: I will lower taxes, I will protect religious liberty, I will enforce immigration laws strictly, I will defend Israel, I will restore America’s robust presence in the world. Stumping for Republican Senate candidate David Perdue in October, he emphasized the Hobby Lobby case, the threat of ISIS, and immigration. He has a small library of failed legislative efforts to back these up. In print and on stage this year, he’s gone hard defending Israel. It all sounds like a lot of the conservative priorities right now. And presumably, these are not random choices. “As Sun Tzu said, every battle is won before it is fought,” he told Texas Monthly’s Erica Grieder, who’s written the best profiles of the senator. He was speaking of his litigation career, but he could have been talking politics. “It is won by choosing the terrain on which the battle is fought.” Then there’s this, perhaps the most important thing, and something that may surprise reporters who find him stiff and distant: If you put Cruz on a stage and then on the ground in the middle of a bunch of Republican families, he is warm, funny, and sincere. Cruz’s dour image might actually play to his advantage a little, insofar as it dramatically manages your expectations. I was in Georgia last month, outside Savannah, watching Cruz campaign for Perdue. Here’s what he opened with: “You’ve seen the news about people jumping the fence at the White House — the guy who jumped over the eight-foot fence in front of the White House earlier this year. The Secret Service tries to run him down. They finally catch him, and they turn to him and say, ‘I’m sorry, Mr. President, you’ve got two more years!’ This week, somebody again jumped over the fence. The Secret Service catches this one, too, and this time they say, ‘I’m sorry, Hillary, not yet!’” The laughter cut through the crowd — mostly families and older couples at a farm — and then turned to loud applause at the real punch line: “And not ever!” It’s, like, not a bad joke. He had others. He delivers them well. Ted Cruz can be funny. The biggest applause of the afternoon, though, may have been for Cruz’s bill to strip Americans who join ISIS of their U.S. citizenship. “You want to know how radical and extreme the Democrats are? The Democrats stood up on the Senate floor and blocked that legislation,” Cruz then said to a small gasp of a reaction. “Jesus,” one man said. Cruz left out the full details of the bill’s outcome: He asked for the bill to be passed by unanimous consent, despite the complex legal issue of stripping citizenship. One senator, Mazie Hirono, objected on reasonable procedural grounds — the bill hadn’t been considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It sounded good in Georgia, though. And Cruz is good in this kind of setting. He thanked person after person for coming to the event, intent and serious, posing for photos and talking to little kids like they were adults. And while Cruz kind of talks to reporters like a character in a 19th century novel — performative and clipped — his rapport with supporters is far more natural. “I just wanted to shake the next president’s hand!” one woman told Cruz after the event; a number of others offered similar sentiments. Cruz radiated sincerity in Georgia, and complex mental gymnastics aren’t involved to imagine it working in Sioux City, Iowa, or Spartanburg, South Carolina. He can fluidly shift from an emotional appeal to a one-liner and back. And if he exaggerates, if he leaves out critical details, if he turns the somewhat reasonable into the outrageous — well, Ted Cruz isn’t running as a lawyer, he’s running as a fighter. You can trust him to always fight for conservative principles. And conservatives are the ones voting in Republican primaries. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Abraham (#0)
Abe, you really need to know this. Political flaws and anti-American values aside, if Cruz can't raise $ 500 hundred million dollars (perhaps more) for his effort, he's out. Let that number sink in and then explain to us how he can possible compete w/the Gop'er establishment.
Gagged on that one. I admit being last one off the turnip truck, but that was some time ago, not yesterday.
It's sad that there is not one person running on a Peace Platform.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
I am eighty three years olde, and have not seen one year of no war or not preparing for war. There has never been true peace, only a cessation of hostilities for a period.
Of course he is. Everything about him, like all the others, is contrived. This is a business, not a true and free election. This, generally speaking, is a product into much R&D has gone and which has been packaged for mass sale. Nothing more, nothing less. He's the current Cabbage Patch Doll or Tickle Me Elmo.
There has never been true peace, only a cessation of hostilities for a period. I think you'd have to insert major in front of war. I'm nowhere near 83 and I distinctly remember no major war and no direct preparations for war from the mid-70s until approximately 15 years later when the first Desert Storm or whatever it was called happened. I was in the military then and recall not even a remote threat of going to any war. Unless you call merely having a military and the standard maintenance of that military directly preparing for war, I disagree. You need to define your terms.
War is always more popular. It's definitely easier to sell at the commercial level. Remember, our government is nothing but a huge money-changing outlet. War is profitable, as long as it is, and as long as those making the decisions to engage us in war are far more insulated from its damaging and lethal affects, other than political unpopularity forcing them from office and into a job in the MIC or high finance that nets them ten times more, peace will not even be on the table as a discussion point. Besides, we have to make the world safe for corporate expedience ...., er, a, I mean democracy.
Difficult to accept a view acquired by anyone not present at the time, or was not cognizant of their surroundings.
Speaking of war, I understand the over/under bet as to when Natanyahu strikes Tehran has been taken off the Vegas boards.
Nearly all wars are long in preparation, rarely do they happen on the spur of the moment. The jews will keep the cauldron boiling in the Middle East, until one day it will boil over. Who will the madman be, that goes first for the nuclear trigger?
Huh? I lived through a part of the period that you said had war or preparations for war but did not. I have no idea what you're talking about. Did we or did we not have a period from the end of Vietnam until the start of Desert Storm (which was only arguable that it was a war as it was more of a brief action, nonetheless) for approximately 15 years from '75 or so to '90 or so where we were either not engaged in a major war or were making preparations for one? If you agree what we did have such a period, then your original statement, is false, despite the fact of however many years you've lived through.
Satan has plenty of acolytes who'll do his bidding when that time comes. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...volving_the_United_States A rather amazing history US has. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
If he read everything that was in "The Art of War", he would be advocating a pullback from the empire a la Ron Paul. Heaven forbid that he takes the Art of War and applies it to foreign policy. Instead he cherry picks the least meaningful passage and calls it a winning strategy. John Howard says: There are 4 schools of economics: Democrats don't mind war as long as they can have big government. Republicans don't mind big government as long as they can have war. For the best, I would not want to lead anyone astray.
In current crop of scum running for president, we have our share.
There were signs of preparation for war in the ME in the 80's, but it was subtle. The developement of the Abrams tank, Cobra choppers and other battle platforms designed for use in desert environments. The switchover of uni's from G.I. olive green to tan khaki's. The bombing of the marine barracks in '83. (false flag op?) The signs were there if you were paying attention.
In other words, the MIC continued to churn on aided by it's many handmaids.
Indeed. Example... Korean war... I served on A bomb crew for more than two years. We were fighting Chinese in Korea, our targets were in Russia. The war ended, our targets remained the same, there were no changes.
I have an uncle who used to fly harriers in the marine corp. I spent a summer with him at Cherry Point, NC in '79, and I remember the jarheads on the base being jazzed about the new governnent issue uni's. My uncle said then we'd be at war in the ME within 10 years. He wasn't real far off on that prediction.
War is the health of the state - Randolph Bourne
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...volving_the_United_States A rather amazing history US has. Yes, true dat! Thanks for the link, Lod. Got to take a weekend and do a big review of the military history of this republic and then lay it down along with an economic timeline of the same. "If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
That's certainly ambitious enough. Try searching for 'economic history war history us' and see how that goes for starters. Someone else may have already done the research for us. Good luck. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Well, as I said, I distinguished between direct and indirectly. By that logic spending even a dollar on anything related to defense while not at war qualifies as preparing for war. As I said, terms need to be defined, they're too broad. That's like saying that the cops have been preparing for a police state ever since the force was around. Clearly not true although the logic is the same.
Obs was correct. Before Versailles was signed, German army had drawn up plans for the next invasion of France, plans that Hitler used. Japan was busy fortifying their new Pacific islands. The US got busy preparing Manilla Bay. All knew war was coming and were preparing. War is war, offensive or defensive.
I did not comment on pre-WWII. Otherwise, that's an incorrect statement. Germany's pre-WWII efforts were entirely defensive in nature. Germany had plans to invade France through Belgium over a decade before WWI even began, but that wasn't a plan to war or start one, it was a just-in-case thing. You really need to brush up on your history Cyni. Seriously, you'll never come to accurate conclusions using false premises. That's what the establishment does to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.
And fwiw, my statement about Hitler all but kissing his own ass in order to avoid war with either England or the US, both of which he respected immensely, is spot on.
jewbankers have long loved seeing goyim slaughter each other as they finance both sides of the butchery.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Obs was right. Such is written by those that were not paying attention. Blissful ignorance.
LMAO You're funny, you simply mentally disregard any facts that aren't convenient for you. And then you wonder how they pull it off nation and world wide when you can't even see through your own bullshit. It's stunning Cyni. It really is.
You're funny, you simply mentally disregard any facts that aren't convenient for you. And then you wonder how they pull it off nation and world wide when you can't even see through your own bullshit. It's stunning Cyni. It really is. I guess at his age he is doing good to just type anything somewhat coherent, much less comprehend what others are writing. Call it Alzheimers, dementia, whatever, it just plain sucks. I sure hope this is not the future I have to look forward to. We did have a time of relative peace from the mid 70s until the early 90s, and even now we are having a period of relative peace compared to the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. The drums for war against Iran are beating louder all the time though and stupid brainwashed Americans that seem to love Israel more than the USA are all for it. If enough Americans ever realized that Israel and traitors in the US government actually did 9/11 then America's love affair with Israel would be over forever. That is why 9/11 truth is maybe the only hope to turn the tables on the Israeli firsters and save this nation. Israeli firsters used 9/11 lies for more wars for Israel and more control over everyone through the Homeland Security Department and the unconstitutional "Patriot Act." We can use 9/11 truth to overthrow the Israeli firsters from America forever. If we do manage to do this then the Jewish establishment won't take this lying down, they will try to do to us what they did to Germany in WW1 and WW2. Unless we declare all out war on them and hunt them down to face judgement, we will never be free from their shenanigans. God is always good!
It is amazing that they keep getting away with it. The one time when a nation actually stopped them, they demonized the heck out of them and their leader. God is always good!
We did have a time of relative peace from the mid 70s until the early 90s, and even now we are having a period of relative peace compared to the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. The drums for war against Iran are beating louder all the time though and stupid brainwashed Americans that seem to love Israel more than the USA are all for it. If enough Americans ever realized that Israel and traitors in the US government actually did 9/11 then America's love affair with Israel would be over forever. That is why 9/11 truth is maybe the only hope to turn the tables on the Israeli firsters and save this nation. Israeli firsters used 9/11 lies for more wars for Israel and more control over everyone through the Homeland Security Department and the unconstitutional "Patriot Act." We can use 9/11 truth to overthrow the Israeli firsters from America forever. If we do manage to do this then the Jewish establishment won't take this lying down, they will try to do to us what they did to Germany in WW1 and WW2. Unless we declare all out war on them and hunt them down to face judgement, we will never be free from their shenanigans. As to Cyni, the thing is that he tried to repackage the same historical nonsense about WWII in another thread that we engaged in discussion. It's a classic say it often enough exercise in his mind. Eh, maybe you're right, maybe at 83 there alzheimers or something. He's a good guy, just a little misguided on a few topics. As to your post, good post, but you implied something that I don't think many here have picked up on yet, and maybe I'm wrong. But I'm thinking that what they did to Germany in WWI and that led up to WWII, economically that is, they are now doing to the US already. There's that whole AIIB thing that I'm not sure at all isn't being orchestrated by the shylocks. If so, then that would be akin to the 1933 global declaration by "Judea" to economically boycott Germany, which did happen. As to the lead-up to wars and the wars themselves, we've learned, from the victor's viewpoint for the few in this country that actually have taken the time to research it, that history is shaped afterwards, not during, by the victors. So historically the winners of any major future wars will be able to dictate the "truth."
It's amazing, ain't it. It's all part of the pay to play system that this world has;
[Excerpt] Katniss at #11 to Cynicom at #8: I lived through a part of the period that you said had war or preparations for war but did not. I have no idea what you're talking about. Did we or did we not have a period from the end of Vietnam until the start of Desert Storm (which was only arguable that it was a war as it was more of a brief action, nonetheless) for approximately 15 years from '75 or so to '90 or so where we were either not engaged in a major war or were making preparations for one? [Excerpt] Katniss at #26 to Cynicom at #25:: I did not comment on pre-WWII. Obnoxicated at #17 to Katniss, Cynicom #7: There were signs of preparation for war in the ME in the 80's, but it was subtle. The developement of the Abrams tank, Cobra choppers and other battle platforms designed for use in desert environments. The switchover of uni's from G.I. olive green to tan khaki's. The bombing of the marine barracks in '83. (false flag op?) The signs were there if you were paying attention. Timeline of United States military operations 1977 and 1979 are the only years not listed there as actions of war, intervention or preparation somehow between the end of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. I don't understand what your definition of a major war is, Katniss, if not the massive Desert Storm strikes and invasion of Iraq in 1990 that's estimated to have killed 20-35,000 Iraqis and wounded 75,000; in addition to our casualties, including the Gulf War Syndrome numbers since that are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. Prior to that, we invaded and regime-changed both Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989-1990). Also in 1983, 28% of our entire force of 850 in Lebanon were killed by the Beirut barracks bombing (false flag?) and many others wounded. But you didn't even acknowledge at #24 what was the worst Marine death toll for one day since Iwo Jima and the highest US Military losses for one day since Day 1 of the TET Offensive. Why limit an octogenarian's real-time observations of our country's various war-footings to just a Post WWII timeframe of 15-years or so that later generations can relate to? And why a strictured but vaguer definition of what amounts to war, as if that's to be calculated merely by duration rather than severity? I'm from a Post-Korean War age-group and see the 15-year period in question now as much more Militarily turbulent than I fully realized at the time. I could be wrong but get the impression that the unspecified duration element (to measure actions of war as major enough to count as one or not) and the Gulf War stopping-point for the discussion seems geared to hopscotch over Clinton and Obama's multiple moves of war. Clinton, I would say, has the most dubious distinction of not only preparing inadequately for the numerous war actions he ordered, he was busy preparationally degrading our Military capability as much as he could get away with -- de-armoring it, etc., etc., etc. P.S. Ted Cruz is Constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Edited formatting + next to last sentence above the post-script section. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
In a related story, Donald Trump had a lucid moment @ 11:45AM today...it passed quickly... --Are you a *Jew*?
This is why we have these semi-idiotic exchanges. You; Me, even as quoted by you; You: Me, even as quoted by you; If you consider those to be major then I'm speechless. You: To that latter one, read the entire thread before you blindly stick up for Cyni on this. Otherwise, either you're not reading or you're being entirely disingenuous. You cite things that I wrote and then leapfrog them as if I never said them. That I don't understand, it's completely illogical. Either way, this has officially become a waste of our time at this point, I merely responded out of courtesy. I addressed every single one of your contentions but you've ignored them completely.
Mitt Romney They aren't Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency or Vice Presidency either. Constitution scofflaws who think Presidential elections here are just popularity contests houldn't be allowed to participate in America's electoral process at all. The same for their fund raising enterprisers and special interest panderers. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
oOo semi-idiotic exchanges. I hadn't noticed that but do now and will get back to you on this ASAP.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
What do you call them, when it's beyond well documented, even by you, the exact opposite of what you're stating? Intellectual? Well thought out? Smart? What? Help me out. Just curious.
Comments (41 - 53) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Abraham, Jethro Tull (#0)
This is not trolling.
#3. To: Cynicom, 4 (#2)
#4. To: Lod (#3)
#5. To: Abraham (#0)
Ted Cruz Is The Frontrunner For The Republican Nomination
#6. To: Cynicom (#4)
(Edited)
I am eighty three years olde, and have not seen one year of no war or not preparing for war.
#7. To: Lod (#3)
It's sad that there is not one person running on a Peace Platform.
#8. To: Katniss (#6)
#9. To: Cynicom, 4 (#4)
I am eighty three years olde, and have not seen one year of no war or not preparing for war.
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#9)
#11. To: Cynicom (#8)
Difficult to accept a view acquired by anyone not present at the time, or was not cognizant of their surroundings.
#12. To: Cynicom (#10)
Who will the madman be, that goes first for the nuclear trigger?
#13. To: All (#12)
wars of the us -
#14. To: Abraham (#0)
“As Sun Tzu said, every battle is won before it is fought,”
Marxism: steal everything
Keynesianism: steal by counterfeiting whenever needed
Chicago school (Milton Friedman): steal by counterfeiting at a steady, predictable rate
Austrians: don't steal
'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century
#15. To: Katniss (#11)
I have no idea what you're talking about.
#16. To: Lod (#12)
Satan has plenty of acolytes who'll do his bidding when that time comes.
#17. To: Katniss, Cynicom (#7)
#18. To: Obnoxicated (#17)
#19. To: Obnoxicated (#17)
The signs were there if you were paying attention.
#20. To: Jethro Tull (#18)
(Edited)
#21. To: Obnoxicated, 4 (#20)
#22. To: Lod (#13)
wars of the us -
#23. To: randge (#22)
Got to take a weekend and do a big review of the military history of this republic and then lay it down along with an economic timeline of the same.
#24. To: Obnoxicated (#17)
There were signs of preparation for war in the ME in the 80's, but it was subtle. The developement of the Abrams tank, Cobra choppers and other battle platforms designed for use in desert environments. The switchover of uni's from G.I. olive green to tan khaki's. The bombing of the marine barracks in '83. (false flag op?) The signs were there if you were paying attention.
#25. To: Katniss (#24)
By that logic spending even a dollar on anything related to defense while not at war qualifies as preparing for war.
#26. To: Cynicom (#25)
#27. To: Cynicom (#25)
#28. To: Cynicom (#25)
#29. To: Katniss (#26)
#30. To: Cynicom (#29)
#31. To: Katniss (#30)
LMAO
#32. To: Lod (#28)
jewbankers have long loved seeing goyim slaughter each other as they finance both sides of the butchery.
#33. To: RickyJ (#31)
I guess at his age he is doing good to just type anything somewhat coherent, much less comprehend what others are writing. Call it Alzheimers, dementia, whatever, it just plain sucks. I sure hope this is not the future I have to look forward to.
#34. To: RickyJ, Lod (#32)
It is amazing that they keep getting away with it. The one time when a nation actually stopped them, they demonized the heck out of them and their leader.
16 And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead; 17 and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, even the name of the beast or the number of his name.
#35. To: Katniss, Cynicom, Lod, Obnoxicated, Abraham (#26)
(Edited)
Cynicom at #4 to Lod at #3: I am eighty three years olde, and have not seen one year of no war or not preparing for war. There has never been true peace, only a cessation of hostilities for a period.
Katniss at #6 to Cynicom at #4: I think you'd have to insert major in front of war. I'm nowhere near 83 and I distinctly remember no major war and no direct preparations for war from the mid-70s until approximately 15 years later when the first Desert Storm or whatever it was called happened. I was in the military then and recall not even a remote threat of going to any war. Unless you call merely having a military and the standard maintenance of that military directly preparing for war, I disagree. You need to define your terms.
Lod at #13 to All: wars of the us - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...volving_the_United_States A rather amazing history US has. [Site title notation: List of wars involving the United States]
Katniss at #24 to Obnoxicated at #17: Well, as I said, I distinguished between direct and indirectly. By that logic spending even a dollar on anything related to defense while not at war qualifies as preparing for war. As I said, terms need to be defined, they're too broad. That's like saying that the cops have been preparing for a police state ever since the force was around. Clearly not true although the logic is the same.
#36. To: Abraham (#0)
Ted Cruz Is The Frontrunner For The Republican Nomination
#37. To: GreyLmist (#35)
I don't understand what your definition of a major war is, Katniss, if not the massive Desert Storm strikes and invasion of Iraq in 1990 that's estimated to have killed 20-35,000 Iraqis and wounded 75,000;
until approximately 15 years later when the first Desert Storm or whatever it was called happened.
Prior to that, we invaded and regime-changed both Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989-1990).
I think you'd have to insert major in front of war.
Why limit an octogenarian's real-time observations of our country's various war-footings to just a Post WWII timeframe of 15-years or so that later generations can relate to?
#38. To: Abraham (#0)
Marco Rubio
#39. To: Katniss (#37)
#40. To: GreyLmist (#39)
(Edited)
.
.
.