Hillary Clinton foreign policy supporter wants to kill russians and iranians

[funinspace]

Trump the High Bar Champion...

Quit editing your damn posts, after you post them

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.

Yeah, if I didn't live in a state dyed deeply blue, like....uh...say Floriduh, I'd probably have to shelf my LP protest vote and vote for Hillary this November. But I'll still be voting for Ron Wyden as my Senator....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

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.

And I said as much. I just think this "war monger" definition for Clinton may not be accurate.

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.

Libya was France's thing. The Drone campaign has limited the need for troops to put themselves in danger to target suspected terrorists. I think the program is likely terribly illegal and if China and Russia started it first, the US would be singing another tune about it. Syria, we simply don't have the resources to pull off intervention with Syria. We don't even have a side to place into power in Syria. She understands that, Trump doesn't.

But we can be pretty sure she won't accidentally get us into a war with Russia like some other clown could...

I don't see her extending the US Military too far. It costs too much money and I doubt Clinton has an agenda which would force her to ignore intelligence analysts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Quit editing your damn posts, after you post them

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.

Yeah, if I didn't live in a state dyed deeply blue, like....uh...say Floriduh, I'd probably have to shelf my LP protest vote and vote for Hillary this November. But I'll still be voting for Ron Wyden as my Senator....

Why can't he run for President? He is about as liberal as we get these days. Wyden / Feingold 2020.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Lets keep perspective, interventions and occupations are two completely different things. The question is, if Clinton is told 'this shit is a bad idea' will she go through with it anyway? If you think Yes, then vote FFS for President and vote the Congress and stuff. If No, then a vote for Clinton isn't too crazy.

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

This is the Huffington Post we are talking about. They can whitewash everything, including credit for the people that actually generated the information at real journalism sites.

 

[funinspace]

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.

And I said as much. I just think this "war monger" definition for Clinton may not be accurate.

Yep, and personally I don't care about the war monger label, though I think the neocon label is pretty much valid. Though calling her a RINO has also become fun....

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.

Libya was France's thing. The Drone campaign has limited the need for troops to put themselves in danger to target suspected terrorists. I think the program is likely terribly illegal and if China and Russia started it first, the US would be singing another tune about it. Syria, we simply don't have the resources to pull off intervention with Syria. We don't even have a side to place into power in Syria. She understands that, Trump doesn't.

I'm not sure sure Hillary understands (or maybe cares) that we don't have a side in Syria. Sure Trump is fucking who knows...almost not even worth talking about regarding international policy... Hillary adviser Jeremy Bash interview on Syria and Libya:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...l-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/

Speaking on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, Mr Bash, who is advising the party's presidential nominee...
<snip>
Mr Bash describes a foreign policy more hawkish than that of the current administration. He said there were a "lot of clues" to how Mrs Clinton will behave as commander-in-chief from her time as secretary of state. During that time she championed the intervention in Libya and advocated the arming of Syrian rebels against the regime.

Sure drones can be a safe substitute for deploying troops. However, it can also be used to bomb countries that we couldn't otherwise go into with special forces without causing huge repercussions, extending our war-making beyond where only the CIA could try to play before. Beyond setting precedents internationally, the fact that we will probably have yet a third President using drone attacks upon countries that we are not at war with, sets a really bad precedent for future presidents. For now we have only targeted countries that are essentially subservient to the US or in a state of anarchy...

 

[ksen]

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.

And I said as much. I just think this "war monger" definition for Clinton may not be accurate.

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.

Libya was France's thing. The Drone campaign has limited the need for troops to put themselves in danger to target suspected terrorists. I think the program is likely terribly illegal and if China and Russia started it first, the US would be singing another tune about it. Syria, we simply don't have the resources to pull off intervention with Syria. We don't even have a side to place into power in Syria. She understands that, Trump doesn't.

But we can be pretty sure she won't accidentally get us into a war with Russia like some other clown could...

I don't see her extending the US Military too far. It costs too much money and I doubt Clinton has an agenda which would force her to ignore intelligence analysts.

Oh! Explain Honduras next!

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Horatio Parker]

The political winds have shifted. During the time of GW, prez contenders had to display a certain amount of belligerence. Clinton went along. By 2008, it worked in Obamas favor that he hadn't voted for the Iraqi invasion. Surely Clinton can read those tea leaves as well as anyone.

Past interventions that are regarded as successes by CW seem to be those that are multilateral.

The public seems to like bellicose rhetoric and no action.

The first concern of a prez is reelection. My guess is she'll play it safe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And I said as much. I just think this "war monger" definition for Clinton may not be accurate.

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.

Libya was France's thing. The Drone campaign has limited the need for troops to put themselves in danger to target suspected terrorists. I think the program is likely terribly illegal and if China and Russia started it first, the US would be singing another tune about it. Syria, we simply don't have the resources to pull off intervention with Syria. We don't even have a side to place into power in Syria. She understands that, Trump doesn't.

But we can be pretty sure she won't accidentally get us into a war with Russia like some other clown could...

I don't see her extending the US Military too far. It costs too much money and I doubt Clinton has an agenda which would force her to ignore intelligence analysts.

Oh! Explain Honduras next!

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

WTF man? Said the drone program was illegal and that we don't have the resources for a major plan in Syria, nor any feasible end game. Your response was as if I was waxing apologetics for Clinton.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But we can be pretty sure she won't accidentally get us into a war with Russia like some other clown could...

True. If she does it, it won't be an accident.