Members banned from this thread: evince


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Hillary's disastrous Middle Eastern debacles

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Hillary's disastrous Middle Eastern debacles




    There hasn’t been a major foreign policy decision in the Middle East she pushed for that didn’t end up being a disaster both at home and the countries she advocated meddling in.

    The most commonly cited “mistake” was her support for the Iraq war which is one of the main reasons she lost the nomination the first time around. But even if one excludes this. Even if one puts it into a memory hole and buries it, the choices she made after 2008 show she not only didn’t learn any lessons from that war but has only grown more bellicose and hawkish.

    From her advocating regime change in Libya, to arming dubious opposition forces in Syria, to undermining peace with Iran -- Clinton has consistently been wrong on foreign policy even after her supposedly humbling loss of 2008.

    Longtime Clinton ally Ann Marie Slaughter was asked on what achievements Clinton could point to as Secretary of State. Her answer?

    Clinton's championing for regime change in Libya - a foreign policy “experience” that reduced Libya to a failed state run largely by ISIS and other jihadists.

    One does not need even to look as far back as Libya in 2011 to see Clinton embracing reckless, hawkish positions in the Middle East. Clinton is called for a no-fly zone in Syria - an act that would have by definition, involved the US potentially shooting down not just Syrian planes but Russian ones as well. If this looks like regime change, that’s because it almost certainly is, According to one 2013 Defense Department estimate a no-fly zone over Syria would entail bombing Syrian military infrastructure and would require over 70,000 servicemen -- and this was before Russia entered the war.

    Clinton attempted to weasel out of this neocon stance by insisting that implementing a no-fly zone in Syria would not require shooting down Russian planes because Russia would “join us”. This, to anyone who has a cursory understanding of the Syrian conflict, is absurd. Why would Russia betray its ally of 44 years and become a US client state?

    Clinton’s “wonkish” posture is built primarily around using Presidential-sounding terms like “no fly zone” rather than bothering to make any sense. This is the product of someone looking to play a role rather than earnestly convey the complexities of the situation at hand.

    The day the U.S. and Iran celebrated finally lifting sanctions that had crippled Iran for years, Clinton proposed more sanctions to look “tough” on Iran. And, again, what kind of message did this send the Iranians - whom Ms. Clinton says she’s proud to call “enemies?” Clinton nominally supported the Iran Deal (not doing so would certainly have been too far) but she took many opportunities to level passive aggressive criticism of it all while proposing even more sanctions on Iran, a position even former Iranian political prisoner Shane Bauer called “totally irresponsible”. In 2008 Clinton mocked Obama for saying he would talk directly to Iran, too.

    On Iraq, on Libya, on proxy wars in Syria, on her support of Saudi and Egyptian tyrants, Clinton has frequently been on the disastrous and disabling side of history. “Experience,” Oscar Wilde once quipped, “is the name everyone gives to their mistakes”, and it’s increasingly clear that too many people have suffered from Clinton's experience for us to consider it anything other than a downside.


    https://www.salon.com/2016/01/23/there_is_no_foreign_policy_d_league_hillarys_forei gn_policy_disastrous_experience_partner/

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,567 Times in 17,094 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    When a war is coming, any politician who stands against it, does so at the expense of their careers. According to U. Grant. Going along with the war is a political decision. She would not have started it. Do you need to see all the politicians who voted for it, including every single Republican?

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,756
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,419 Times in 7,538 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    When a war is coming, any politician who stands against it, does so at the expense of their careers. According to U. Grant. Going along with the war is a political decision. She would not have started it. Do you need to see all the politicians who voted for it, including every single Republican?
    I hate warmonger neoc0n repubs as well as the hildebeest who was one .
    .
    Last edited by anonymoose; 10-20-2018 at 11:00 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to anonymoose For This Post:

    anatta (10-22-2018)

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    709
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 295 Times in 213 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 14 Times in 13 Posts

    Default

    You'd never catch President Trump being nasty to Iran.
    I Love Russia

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    709
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 295 Times in 213 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 14 Times in 13 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    I hate warmonger neoc0n repubs
    Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was the only Republican senator who voted against the Iraq war.

    He was pro-choice, pro-environment, favored same-sex marriage, backed strict gun laws, and opposed tax cuts.

    He later turned Democrat.
    I Love Russia

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Aarr! For This Post:

    kudzu (10-21-2018)

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,567 Times in 17,094 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Wars are about money. It makes a pile of money for munition manufacturers, retired generals, The military/industrial/rt wing media complex is alive and well. We completely ignored Eisenhower's warnings. Now we pay for it year after year with treasure and blood.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Nordberg For This Post:

    Phantasmal (10-22-2018)

  10. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,567 Times in 17,094 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Hillary worked for Obama. She did his policies. She did not formulate her own.

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post



    There hasn’t been a major foreign policy decision in the Middle East she pushed for that didn’t end up being a disaster both at home and the countries she advocated meddling in.

    The most commonly cited “mistake” was her support for the Iraq war which is one of the main reasons she lost the nomination the first time around. But even if one excludes this. Even if one puts it into a memory hole and buries it, the choices she made after 2008 show she not only didn’t learn any lessons from that war but has only grown more bellicose and hawkish.

    From her advocating regime change in Libya, to arming dubious opposition forces in Syria, to undermining peace with Iran -- Clinton has consistently been wrong on foreign policy even after her supposedly humbling loss of 2008.

    Longtime Clinton ally Ann Marie Slaughter was asked on what achievements Clinton could point to as Secretary of State. Her answer?

    Clinton's championing for regime change in Libya - a foreign policy “experience” that reduced Libya to a failed state run largely by ISIS and other jihadists.

    One does not need even to look as far back as Libya in 2011 to see Clinton embracing reckless, hawkish positions in the Middle East. Clinton is called for a no-fly zone in Syria - an act that would have by definition, involved the US potentially shooting down not just Syrian planes but Russian ones as well. If this looks like regime change, that’s because it almost certainly is, According to one 2013 Defense Department estimate a no-fly zone over Syria would entail bombing Syrian military infrastructure and would require over 70,000 servicemen -- and this was before Russia entered the war.

    Clinton attempted to weasel out of this neocon stance by insisting that implementing a no-fly zone in Syria would not require shooting down Russian planes because Russia would “join us”. This, to anyone who has a cursory understanding of the Syrian conflict, is absurd. Why would Russia betray its ally of 44 years and become a US client state?

    Clinton’s “wonkish” posture is built primarily around using Presidential-sounding terms like “no fly zone” rather than bothering to make any sense. This is the product of someone looking to play a role rather than earnestly convey the complexities of the situation at hand.

    The day the U.S. and Iran celebrated finally lifting sanctions that had crippled Iran for years, Clinton proposed more sanctions to look “tough” on Iran. And, again, what kind of message did this send the Iranians - whom Ms. Clinton says she’s proud to call “enemies?” Clinton nominally supported the Iran Deal (not doing so would certainly have been too far) but she took many opportunities to level passive aggressive criticism of it all while proposing even more sanctions on Iran, a position even former Iranian political prisoner Shane Bauer called “totally irresponsible”. In 2008 Clinton mocked Obama for saying he would talk directly to Iran, too.

    On Iraq, on Libya, on proxy wars in Syria, on her support of Saudi and Egyptian tyrants, Clinton has frequently been on the disastrous and disabling side of history. “Experience,” Oscar Wilde once quipped, “is the name everyone gives to their mistakes”, and it’s increasingly clear that too many people have suffered from Clinton's experience for us to consider it anything other than a downside.


    https://www.salon.com/2016/01/23/there_is_no_foreign_policy_d_league_hillarys_forei gn_policy_disastrous_experience_partner/

    Were YOU for the invasion of Iraq?

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,567 Times in 17,094 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Nearly everyone capitulated. Even PBS was on the go in side when Bush got done. Big part was Powells dog and pont show at the UN. It was terrible and fake as hell, but the people bought it. Powell says he is ashamed of having done that. He should be.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Nordberg For This Post:

    kudzu (10-21-2018)

  14. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Nearly everyone capitulated. Even PBS was on the go in side when Bush got done. Big part was Powells dog and pont show at the UN. It was terrible and fake as hell, but the people bought it. Powell says he is ashamed of having done that. He should be.
    By the time conflict erupted in Libya, the Republicans thought there must be some magic quick fix.

  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post



    There hasn’t been a major foreign policy decision in the Middle East she pushed for that didn’t end up being a disaster both at home and the countries she advocated meddling in.

    The most commonly cited “mistake” was her support for the Iraq war which is one of the main reasons she lost the nomination the first time around. But even if one excludes this. Even if one puts it into a memory hole and buries it, the choices she made after 2008 show she not only didn’t learn any lessons from that war but has only grown more bellicose and hawkish.

    From her advocating regime change in Libya, to arming dubious opposition forces in Syria, to undermining peace with Iran -- Clinton has consistently been wrong on foreign policy even after her supposedly humbling loss of 2008.

    Longtime Clinton ally Ann Marie Slaughter was asked on what achievements Clinton could point to as Secretary of State. Her answer?

    Clinton's championing for regime change in Libya - a foreign policy “experience” that reduced Libya to a failed state run largely by ISIS and other jihadists.

    One does not need even to look as far back as Libya in 2011 to see Clinton embracing reckless, hawkish positions in the Middle East. Clinton is called for a no-fly zone in Syria - an act that would have by definition, involved the US potentially shooting down not just Syrian planes but Russian ones as well. If this looks like regime change, that’s because it almost certainly is, According to one 2013 Defense Department estimate a no-fly zone over Syria would entail bombing Syrian military infrastructure and would require over 70,000 servicemen -- and this was before Russia entered the war.

    Clinton attempted to weasel out of this neocon stance by insisting that implementing a no-fly zone in Syria would not require shooting down Russian planes because Russia would “join us”. This, to anyone who has a cursory understanding of the Syrian conflict, is absurd. Why would Russia betray its ally of 44 years and become a US client state?

    Clinton’s “wonkish” posture is built primarily around using Presidential-sounding terms like “no fly zone” rather than bothering to make any sense. This is the product of someone looking to play a role rather than earnestly convey the complexities of the situation at hand.

    The day the U.S. and Iran celebrated finally lifting sanctions that had crippled Iran for years, Clinton proposed more sanctions to look “tough” on Iran. And, again, what kind of message did this send the Iranians - whom Ms. Clinton says she’s proud to call “enemies?” Clinton nominally supported the Iran Deal (not doing so would certainly have been too far) but she took many opportunities to level passive aggressive criticism of it all while proposing even more sanctions on Iran, a position even former Iranian political prisoner Shane Bauer called “totally irresponsible”. In 2008 Clinton mocked Obama for saying he would talk directly to Iran, too.

    On Iraq, on Libya, on proxy wars in Syria, on her support of Saudi and Egyptian tyrants, Clinton has frequently been on the disastrous and disabling side of history. “Experience,” Oscar Wilde once quipped, “is the name everyone gives to their mistakes”, and it’s increasingly clear that too many people have suffered from Clinton's experience for us to consider it anything other than a downside.


    https://www.salon.com/2016/01/23/there_is_no_foreign_policy_d_league_hillarys_forei gn_policy_disastrous_experience_partner/
    She is not President, she will not be President, and yet the right wing keeps dragging her up to cover up for the current fiascos of the lying coward they put in office. And you fucking freaks had to go back to 2016 to drag this one up.
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Old Trapper For This Post:

    kudzu (10-21-2018)

  17. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,685
    Thanks
    6,597
    Thanked 12,131 Times in 9,660 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Wars are about money. It makes a pile of money for munition manufacturers, retired generals, The military/industrial/rt wing media complex is alive and well. We completely ignored Eisenhower's warnings. Now we pay for it year after year with treasure and blood.
    But why right wing? The war profiteers own left, right and center.

  18. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fapper View Post

    Hillary Clinton has 100 percent name ID, a personal fortune and a bastion of loyalists. She could enter the race at the last possible moment—"at the behest of the people", of course—and catch her DEMOCRAT Party rivals by surprise.


    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/hillary-clinton-is-running-for-president-again-214766

  19. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,567 Times in 17,094 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    But why right wing? The war profiteers own left, right and center.
    Because the Repubs like to start wars. If you read the PNAC you would know the Repubs wrote a manifesto explaining how war was their policy. Endless wars. They were going to entirely remake the middle east. PNAC was written and signed by Bushes, Cheney, Rumsfenld wolfowitz, Kristol and many more. They were the neocons that populated Bush's administration. Bolton was also one and he is running Trump war policy. This is a very dangerous time.

  20. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    8,490
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 3,180 Times in 2,409 Posts
    Groans
    376
    Groaned 244 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    Many of our unaccompanied minors can also be traced by her pushing to recognize a right-wing coup government in Honduras because the right-wingers were more willing to work with Wall Street resource depleters while the left-wing government (that was pro everything she allegedly stands for) wouldn't be easy to work with. She is the epitome of corporate hegemony.

Similar Threads

  1. DEMOCRAT debacles in the news
    By Русский агент in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-06-2018, 05:28 PM
  2. Replies: 83
    Last Post: 10-04-2016, 07:08 AM
  3. Big Banks Hillary To Middle Class: Let Them Eat Cake!
    By philly rabbit in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-09-2016, 06:38 AM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-18-2013, 10:50 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-21-2007, 08:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •