• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Hillary Clinton foreign policy supporter wants to kill russians and iranians

Harry_Bosch said:
ksen said:
Because support for neocon policies is repugnant to me. And Hillary is obviously comfortable enough to big name neo-cons that they'll publically throw her their support. And I feel like communicating that.

One of the main selling points of her to people like me has been she'll be less dangerous than Trump in foreign policy. I'm saying she may even be worse than Trump on foreign policy.
Click to expand...

It's interesting, but you seem to be a very embarrassed closet Trump supporter!
Click to expand...

Worse, he's a Stein supporter. :disgust:
 
Harry_Bosch said:
ksen said:
Because support for neocon policies is repugnant to me. And Hillary is obviously comfortable enough to big name neo-cons that they'll publically throw her their support. And I feel like communicating that.

One of the main selling points of her to people like me has been she'll be less dangerous than Trump in foreign policy. I'm saying she may even be worse than Trump on foreign policy.
Click to expand...

It's interesting, but you seem to be a very embarrassed closet Trump supporter! As an aside, this is why I don't fully trust the polls. I think that there will be many people who will claim that they're going to vote for Clinton, but will vote for Trump at the end.

Anyway, almost every day Trump makes a statement that makes him appear to be far more militaristic. than Hillary. Just today Trump was hammering Obama for pulling out of Iraq, claiming that this created Isis. IOW, the US needs to occupy Arab countries.
Click to expand...

You seriously think ksen is a closeted Trump supporter?
 
ksen said:
Why, what could possibly go wrong?

Sure makes me feel good that foreign policy neo-cons are flocking to Hillary.
Click to expand...

They are going home to their party of origin, and rejoining the kin who never left.

The "neo" in "neocon" comes from "neo" meaning "new", as in the "neocons" are "new conservatives". They got that name when they switched from supporting the Democratic Party to the Republican Party over a perception that the Democrats were insufficiently militaristic and insufficiently willing to use the military to remake the world in their image. For a long time (before Bush Jr.) an unofficial definition of "neocon" was "a Republican you wouldn't be embarrassed to be seen with" or "a Republican you would invite to a party" because their positions on many issues were malleable enough to fit in with the Democratic Party they originally left. Their main focus was indeed foreign policy.

When they achieved ascendancy under Bush Jr it became apparent how awful they were. But people forgot their history, and forgot that Hillary is in the ideology camp of "those that didn't leave the Democratic Party". They believe basically the same thing, but under different party labels. Of course the neocons in the Bush Jr. administration had to forge ties to the corporate business conservatives and the religious conservatives in order to rule, but that is simply coalition building and not a reflection of where neocons are necessarily found on those issues.

Funny thing though. There are many Democrats who hate neocons and are going to vote for Killary, I mean Hillary. Her ideology is practically indistinguishable from Dick Cheney, the areas where they differ are only found in the coalition building and not in their core beliefs. I suppose those Democrats who hate neocons could say "well she'll build a different coalition" but that is an admission that there really is no essential difference between Cheney and Hillary.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
ksen said:
Why, what could possibly go wrong?

Sure makes me feel good that foreign policy neo-cons are flocking to Hillary.
Click to expand...

They are going home to their party of origin, and rejoining the kin who never left.

The "neo" in "neocon" comes from "neo" meaning "new", as in the "neocons" are "new conservatives". They got that name when they switched from supporting the Democratic Party to the Republican Party over a perception that the Democrats were insufficiently militaristic and insufficiently willing to use the military to remake the world in their image. For a long time (before Bush Jr.) an unofficial definition of "neocon" was "a Republican you wouldn't be embarrassed to be seen with" or "a Republican you would invite to a party" because their positions on many issues were malleable enough to fit in with the Democratic Party they originally left. Their main focus was indeed foreign policy.

When they achieved ascendancy under Bush Jr it became apparent how awful they were. But people forgot their history, and forgot that Hillary is in the ideology camp of "those that didn't leave the Democratic Party". They believe basically the same thing, but under different party labels. Of course the neocons in the Bush Jr. administration had to forge ties to the corporate business conservatives and the religious conservatives in order to rule, but that is simply coalition building and not a reflection of where neocons are necessarily found on those issues.

Funny thing though. There are many Democrats who hate neocons and are going to vote for Killary, I mean Hillary. Her ideology is practically indistinguishable from Dick Cheney, the areas where they differ are only found in the coalition building and not in their core beliefs. I suppose those Democrats who hate neocons could say "well she'll build a different coalition" but that is an admission that there really is no essential difference between Cheney and Hillary.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong. It was Cheney who coined the phrase "they are either with us or against us". Cheney and Bush and other neocons favor unilateral US police action. I'll agree that HRC is more willing to use military action than Sanders: but she prefers to use it when it is in conjunction and agreement with the UN. She favors collaboration. Personally, I think that we should completely pull out of the Hell Hole we call the ME. But HRC is influenced by the US inaction that led to the Rwanda massacre. She's more kind hearted than I, and wants to avoid another Rwanda.
 
You say I am wrong that the neocons got the "neo" prefix when they switched parties to the Republican Party?

Or that I am wrong that some stayed behind?

Or that Killary never met an intervention she didn't like?
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
You say I am wrong that the neocons got the "neo" prefix when they switched parties to the Republican Party?

Or that I am wrong that some stayed behind?

Or that Killary never met an intervention she didn't like?
Click to expand...

Have you been drinking? I try to stay away when I'm drinking the firewater!
 
Didn't Hillary vote to give them that power?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
Pretty sure she did vote for the Iraq,war resolution and the Patriot Act
 
Harry_Bosch said:
ksen said:
Pretty sure she did vote for the Iraq,war resolution and the Patriot Act
Click to expand...

So, you're not going to read my link? Just keep repeating the Fox News nonsense?
Click to expand...

Your link is attempting to spin out and gloss over the fact that she did indeed vote for the AUMF. Sorry.

And it didn't address her support of the USAPATRIOT Act.

Like Cheney, she believes in using the military to make over the world. Like Cheney, she'll do it with our without partners.
 
I read it. "She's sorry" may satisfy you but it doesn't me.

She voted for it, she voted twice for the Patriot Act and as Secretary of State she pushed for even more interventions.

These are facts that a fluff piece at HuffPo can't whitewash away.

If you're brown and live "over there" she's dangerous to you.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
Harry_Bosch said:
ksen said:
Didn't Hillary vote to give them that power?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Of course not. You've been watching Fox news too much.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffr...hs-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html
Click to expand...

This is a funny Fox news article:
Hillary’s Pro-Iraq War Vote Is Still a Really Big Deal

And you and the Huffington Post article you linked are whitewashing Hillary's participation in the lead up to the Iraqi invasion. Sure that resolution she voted for had flowery language about diplomacy and such. But in the end, the resolution gave the sitting president carte blanche for his invasion, and I don't recall being surprised at the Shrub's quick action.

There was an ammendment (Levin Amdt. No. 4862) that was trying to tie the Congressional resolution back to a more formal UN resolution to support an invasion and Hillary voted against this amendment. Such a UN linkage would actually do far more to force the President to act responsibly than what was passed.

See: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235

And this ignores her participation and support for action in Libya and Syria.

With all that said, she is still less worse than what we could get with the mad hatter...
 
funinspace said:
Harry_Bosch said:
Of course not. You've been watching Fox news too much.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffr...hs-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html
Click to expand...

This is a funny Fox news article:
Hillary’s Pro-Iraq War Vote Is Still a Really Big Deal

And you and the Huffington Post article you linked are whitewashing Hillary's participation in the lead up to the Iraqi invasion. Sure that resolution she voted for had flowery language about diplomacy and such. But in the end, the resolution gave the sitting president carte blanche for his invasion, and I don't recall being surprised at the Shrub's quick action.

There was an ammendment (Levin Amdt. No. 4862) that was trying to tie the Congressional resolution back to a more formal UN resolution to support an invasion and Hillary voted against this amendment. Such a UN linkage would actually do far more to force the President to act responsibly than what was passed.

See: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235

And this ignores her participation and support for action in Libya and Syria.

With all that said, she is still less worse than what we could get with the mad hatter...
Click to expand...
I have always thought those that voted yes was for political reasons. They feared the ungodly support W would have received for going into Iraq, beating Hussein quickly, and then winning in a landslide in '04. Clinton and others, didn't want to be on the 'voted no' side of that. And W went into Iraq and cleaned house with an anorexic mobilization (also they had the Iraqi military not fight). Clinton doesn't look bad and weak at this point, gamble pays off. The ensuing occupation leads to the displacement of millions and deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqis. Oh shit! That's right, it wasn't going to work after all.

I don't know how much weight I put into that vote of hers, however, I'm already not a fan to begin with. Pragmatism is important, but I don't think voting for a needless war for election reasons is very pragmatic.

Of course, a bunch of Nader voters in 2000 have helped sway the Democrats to the right, so this is my "best" option in November. Funny how the third party folks say 'Now is the time to make a difference'. To quote Lewis Black, "Fuck you!" It is fucking depressing.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
funinspace said:
This is a funny Fox news article:
Hillary’s Pro-Iraq War Vote Is Still a Really Big Deal

And you and the Huffington Post article you linked are whitewashing Hillary's participation in the lead up to the Iraqi invasion. Sure that resolution she voted for had flowery language about diplomacy and such. But in the end, the resolution gave the sitting president carte blanche for his invasion, and I don't recall being surprised at the Shrub's quick action.

There was an ammendment (Levin Amdt. No. 4862) that was trying to tie the Congressional resolution back to a more formal UN resolution to support an invasion and Hillary voted against this amendment. Such a UN linkage would actually do far more to force the President to act responsibly than what was passed.

See: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235

And this ignores her participation and support for action in Libya and Syria.

With all that said, she is still less worse than what we could get with the mad hatter...
Click to expand...
I have always thought those that voted yes was for political reasons. They feared the ungodly support W would have received for going into Iraq, beating Hussein quickly, and then winning in a landslide in '04. Clinton and others, didn't want to be on the 'voted no' side of that. And W went into Iraq and cleaned house with an anorexic mobilization (also they had the Iraqi military not fight). Clinton doesn't look bad and weak at this point, gamble pays off. The ensuing occupation leads to the displacement of millions and deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqis. Oh shit! That's right, it wasn't going to work after all.

I don't know how much weight I put into that vote of hers, however, I'm already not a fan to begin with. Pragmatism is important, but I don't think voting for a needless war for election reasons is very pragmatic.
Click to expand...
I certainly wouldn't argue that her political calculations was much more on Clinton's mind than "what if we fuck up the ME". But that is hardly something positive to say about her.

But it is also not just 1 vote. She has part of the Obama Administration, with it's Drone campaigns, the somoliazation of Libya, destabilization of Syria, and she is on record for increased mayhem in Syria.

But we can be pretty sure she won't accidentally get us into a war with Russia like some other clown could...
 
ksen said:
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09...s-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview Monday that U.S. policy in Syria should be to make Iran and Russia “pay a price” by arming local groups and instructing them to kill Iranian and Russian personnel in the country.

Morell was appearing on the Charlie Rose show on PBS in the wake of his publicly endorsing Hillary Clinton on the New York Times opinion pages.

Clinton has expressed support for increased military intervention in Syria against Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government. Iran and Russia are backing Assad.

“What they need is to have the Russians and Iranians pay a little price,” Morell said. “When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons to the Shia militia, who were killing American soldiers, right? The Iranians were making us pay a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price.”

Morell said the killing of Russians and Iranians should be undertaken “covertly, so you don’t tell the world about it, you don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say ‘we did this.’ But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”
Click to expand...

Why, what could possibly go wrong?

Sure makes me feel good that foreign policy neo-cons are flocking to Hillary.
Click to expand...

...and some people say Trump is bad. Clinton and members of her party are needlessly interested in meddling in the Middle East.
 
funinspace said:
Harry_Bosch said:
Of course not. You've been watching Fox news too much.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffr...hs-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html
Click to expand...

This is a funny Fox news article:
Hillary’s Pro-Iraq War Vote Is Still a Really Big Deal

And you and the Huffington Post article you linked are whitewashing Hillary's participation in the lead up to the Iraqi invasion. Sure that resolution she voted for had flowery language about diplomacy and such. But in the end, the resolution gave the sitting president carte blanche for his invasion, and I don't recall being surprised at the Shrub's quick action.

There was an ammendment (Levin Amdt. No. 4862) that was trying to tie the Congressional resolution back to a more formal UN resolution to support an invasion and Hillary voted against this amendment. Such a UN linkage would actually do far more to force the President to act responsibly than what was passed.

See: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235

And this ignores her participation and support for action in Libya and Syria.

With all that said, she is still less worse than what we could get with the mad hatter...
Click to expand...

As far as opposing someone more insane then here on foreign policy, Hilary has certainly set the bar high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom