Will the Democrats nominate a George McGovern or a Bill Clinton in 2020?

[Harry Bosch]

Um, McCain and Hillary are equals. Hillary and McCain and Cheney, all one big mass of Neocon aggression.

Yes, I just called Hillary a Neocon.

Obama looked like a peace candidate because he ran against Hillary in the primary and McCain in the general. Compared to those two anyone would look like a peace candidate.

Well, do you or do you not see a difference between full invasion and occupation; vs supporting our allies and letting them do the majority of the fighting and all the occupation. You honestly see no difference? The republican strategy of invading Iraq required 300,000 US troops, 7 years of occupation and more than 105 trillion dollars. Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. Obama/HRC approach is to use a couple thousand American troops, but let our allies do the majority of the fighting and occupying. We want the locals to govern themselves. Do you honestly equate the two?

I've asked you this question several times and haven't see you answer? Why?

 

[laughing dog]

Um, McCain and Hillary are equals.

HRC was not in favor of attacking Iran - McCain was. You are wrong - it is possible to more hawkish than HRC. Has HRC suggested attacking Russia over the invasion of Ukraine?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Um, McCain and Hillary are equals.

HRC was not in favor of attacking Iran - McCain was. You are wrong - it is possible to more hawkish than HRC. Has HRC suggested attacking Russia over the invasion of Ukraine?

Well, adding to your post: Trump's likely secretary of state, John Bolton favors the US invading Iran. HRC, as Obama's secretary of state, favored a 10-year treaty with Iran. The difference is clear.

 

[Derec]

Well, adding to your post: Trump's likely secretary of state, John Bolton favors the US invading Iran. HRC, as Obama's secretary of state, favored a 10-year treaty with Iran. The difference is clear.

10 year treaty, after which they are free to develop nuclear weapons without sanctions. Brilliant!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, adding to your post: Trump's likely secretary of state, John Bolton favors the US invading Iran. HRC, as Obama's secretary of state, favored a 10-year treaty with Iran. The difference is clear.

10 year treaty, after which they are free to develop nuclear weapons without sanctions. Brilliant!

Well, would you agree then that HRC/Obama foreign policy is significantly different from Bush/trump?

 

[ZiprHead]

Actually, wouldn't it be Bill's fault for passing NAFTA and shipping their jobs to Mexico so that they're all unemployed and therefore couldn't come up with that kind of cash?

Bush I signed NAFTA on December 17, 1992.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact.

The passage of NAFTA was one of Clinton’s first major victories as the first Democratic president in 12 years–though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nafta-signed-into-law

 

[Terrell]

The only reason I thought he might be less hawkish than Hillary is because it is impossible to be more. He can be equal or less, those are the only options.

Nonsense, John Bolton and John McCain are more hawkish than HRC.

Not to mention Lindsey Graham.



BTW, I don't want the Dems nominating a George McGovern, he lost 49 states. He carried D.C. and MA, that's it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, Bolton, McCain, and Graham are all hawkish. So's Hillary.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, Bolton, McCain, and Graham are all hawkish. So's Hillary.

No one here is denying that Mrs. Clinton is hawkish. You are the one who claims it is impossible to more hawkish than Mrs. Clinton. It is pretty obvious that Bolton, McCain and Graham are more hawkish than Mrs. Clinton.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yes, Bolton, McCain, and Graham are all hawkish. So's Hillary.

Jason: it's not like you to dodge questions. I'll try again, do you agree that Obama's approach (letting locals lead the fighting and occupy) is far les hawkish that republican strategy of leading with all US troops and US to fully occupy?

 

[ksen]

10 year treaty, after which they are free to develop nuclear weapons without sanctions. Brilliant!

Well, would you agree then that HRC/Obama foreign policy is significantly different from Bush/trump?

You're assuming Bush and Trump have the same foreign policy. I submit they don't and that HRC's is closer to W's foreign policy than Trump's is.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, would you agree then that HRC/Obama foreign policy is significantly different from Bush/trump?

You're assuming Bush and Trump have the same foreign policy. I submit they don't and that HRC's is closer to W's foreign policy than Trump's is.

That's assuming that anyone has any idea what Trump's foreign policy will be (and I include Trump in that statement). He could be a complete isolationist who keeps his armies at home regardless of how much the world burns or he could be a complete military adventurist who has his armies burn the world or anywhere inbetween.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, would you agree then that HRC/Obama foreign policy is significantly different from Bush/trump?

You're assuming Bush and Trump have the same foreign policy. I submit they don't and that HRC's is closer to W's foreign policy than Trump's is.

To be polite, your position doesn't hold water. It's clear what HRC's position on Iran is. You can google it. She practically wrote the treaty that we currently have with Iran. She basically wrote it, Kerry implemented it. Trump's SOS will be Bolten. His position is equally clear on the matter. Just use google. He advocated ripping up the treaty and engaging them in a war. I've got three kids close to college that may have to fight in a war that your crazy guy might put us in. But hey, if it helps you to sleep at night: sure HRC and Trump have the same foreign policy!

 

[ksen]

You're assuming Bush and Trump have the same foreign policy. I submit they don't and that HRC's is closer to W's foreign policy than Trump's is.

To be polite, your position doesn't hold water. It's clear what HRC's position on Iran is. You can google it. She practically wrote the treaty that we currently have with Iran. She basically wrote it, Kerry implemented it. Trump's SOS will be Bolten. His position is equally clear on the matter. Just use google. He advocated ripping up the treaty and engaging them in a war. I've got three kids close to college that may have to fight in a war that your crazy guy might put us in. But hey, if it helps you to sleep at night: sure HRC and Trump have the same foreign policy!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9157892

hmmm

 

[Harry Bosch]

To be polite, your position doesn't hold water. It's clear what HRC's position on Iran is. You can google it. She practically wrote the treaty that we currently have with Iran. She basically wrote it, Kerry implemented it. Trump's SOS will be Bolten. His position is equally clear on the matter. Just use google. He advocated ripping up the treaty and engaging them in a war. I've got three kids close to college that may have to fight in a war that your crazy guy might put us in. But hey, if it helps you to sleep at night: sure HRC and Trump have the same foreign policy!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9157892

hmmm

I'm suppose to be swayed because you quote an opinion piece that supports your opinion? But again, your guy won. Mine lost. We'll see how the next few years fare. I think that it will be boom times for the defense industry. But maybe I'm wrong. We'll see.........

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, Bolton, McCain, and Graham are all hawkish. So's Hillary.

Jason: it's not like you to dodge questions. I'll try again, do you agree that Obama's approach (letting locals lead the fighting and occupy) is far les hawkish that republican strategy of leading with all US troops and US to fully occupy?

Obama's strategy (which isn't Hillary's strategy) is somewhat less hawkish than the Hillary-McCain-Cheney strategy of war as a first option. But, on the downside, Obama has shown his great love of drone airstrikes.

 

[fromderinside]

If one want's to do things without actually declaring war one does things like drone strikes. I don't think that is love. It's practical. When others learn how to do it they'll follow suit, but we already have means to defend against such activity. So goes those with the high ground. Apparently we can join with a rogue nation to eliminate rebellion without starting a war, but, we haven't done it for some reason. Advantage Russia there.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I do not consider it to not be an act of war to use a drone strike.

Imagine if some other country were to bomb the USA. Would not the people and government of the USA consider it an act of war?

The only reason the USA can get away with it is because nobody we have used them against really has the power to enact any sort of retaliation, and that is why the USA has not used said strikes in the Ukraine conflict.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Jason: it's not like you to dodge questions. I'll try again, do you agree that Obama's approach (letting locals lead the fighting and occupy) is far les hawkish that republican strategy of leading with all US troops and US to fully occupy?

Obama's strategy (which isn't Hillary's strategy) is somewhat less hawkish than the Hillary-McCain-Cheney strategy of war as a first option. But, on the downside, Obama has shown his great love of drone airstrikes.

Well, first off, thank you for answering the question! (It took a little while, but it came!). Would you agree that drone strikes kill far far few civilians than outright US invasion? Off the top of my head, I don't know how many civilians have died from drone strikes. I did see an estimate that our invasion of Iraq killed $750M civilians. Secondly, would you agree that at least with drone strikes, that locals can control the ground?