Clinton's Syria Policy

[bshole]

Get ready for this to get real...

Michèle Flournoy, who is considered a top candidate to be Clinton’s Defense secretary, over the weekend called the Obama administration’s policy on Syria’s civil war “a mistake.”

“The United States has assumed that this problem is not as important and has heretofore avoided involvement except for pursuing diplomatic negotiations. That’s a mistake,” she and co-author Ilan Goldenberg, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), wrote in The Washington Post.

Flournoy, who is now at CNAS, called for exploring limited military options such as missiles and other long-range weapons to deter Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his ally, Russia, from bombing civilians and moderate rebels. She also put forward that argument in an interview last month to Defense One.

On the campaign trail, Clinton has called for establishing a no-fly zone in Syria, which would likely entail U.S. military aircraft patrolling the skies and possibly taking out Syrian and Russian aircraft.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/287479-debate-rages-in-clinton-camp-over-syria-policy

I do not understand what the goal of this type of policy is. It seems counterproductive to American interests. Do we have to be bombing and killing and disrupting Middle Eastern countries forever? Do these people even bother with a long term objective any more?

 

[Knowing]

I feel like I've said Clinton was a hawk before. I feel like I've quoted articles talking about how Obama's Syrian intervention was Hillary's idea.

She's gonna do what she wants.

 

[compuwiz1]

Whether it be Clinton or Trump, new wars are imminent.

 

[theeedude]

Trump will make a deal with Putin. And by make a deal, I mean give Putin what he wants. His campaign chief is practically on Russian payroll, previously worked to put a puppet president in the Ukraine.

 

[TallBill]

Trump will make a deal with Putin. And by make a deal, I mean give Putin what he wants. His campaign chief is practically on Russian payroll, previously worked to put a puppet president in the Ukraine.

Hillary will make a deal with Putin. And by make a deal, I mean give Putin what he wants.

This is fun.

 

[shady28]

Trump will make a deal with Putin. And by make a deal, I mean give Putin what he wants. His campaign chief is practically on Russian payroll, previously worked to put a puppet president in the Ukraine.

Seriously, want to provide PROOF of that assinine claim?

Lets be real, what just happened?

The Democratic Party rigged their primary election.


And now they want everyone to believe that the Russians are behind it and that the Russians are advising and supporting Trump.

 

[brycejones]

Seriously, want to provide PROOF of that assinine claim?

Lets be real, what just happened?

The Democratic Party rigged their primary election.


And now they want everyone to believe that the Russians are behind it and that the Russians are advising and supporting Trump.

You ask for proof of a claim and derail into an unrelated subject all in the same post? :thumbsup:

 

[shady28]

You ask for proof of a claim and derail into an unrelated subject all in the same post? :thumbsup:

Hey lefty, how about you send that shit to senseamp seeing as he is the one that brought that bullshit up?

 

[bshole]

Trump will make a deal with Putin. And by make a deal, I mean give Putin what he wants. His campaign chief is practically on Russian payroll, previously worked to put a puppet president in the Ukraine.

From the article I posted it appears that Clinton is willing to shoot down Russian warplanes if that is what it takes to take down Assad. Do you support that? I am sure the Republican party supports it whole-heartedly. When did the Democratic party become the party of war and escalation?

Does anybody in politics support complete military detachment from the Middle East?

WHAT IS THE POINT OF TAKING OUT ASSAD OTHER THAN TO CLEAR THE WAY FOR AN ISLAMIST CALIPHATE?!!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????!!!!! Jesus Fucking Christ.

For fucks sake Hillary, we all know that the primary driver for your Assad policy is the Saudis (THE PRINCIPLE AUTHOR OF ALL ISLAMIC TERRORISM). Do they have a big paycheck waiting or do they know where the bodies are hidden?

In terms of foreign policy, get ready for a GW Bush style debacle. Hillary and GW use the exact same playbook. This despite the fact that Hillary has had 16 years to observe the absolute and dismal failure of military intervention. Every military adventure over there builds up new hate, breeds new terrorists and fosters instability.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I feel like I've said Clinton was a hawk before. I feel like I've quoted articles talking about how Obama's Syrian intervention was Hillary's idea.

As well as Libya. Hillary hasn't seen a war she doesn't like.

Syria is a long-time Russian ally and for Hillary to advocate that we create a 'no-fly' zone to prevent Russian air support is indicative of her incredibly poor judgment (which imo borders on insanity). Everything this woman touches turns to shit! Glad Obama overruled her on this one!

 

[bshole]

As well as Libya. Hillary hasn't seen a war she doesn't like.

Which makes her a good fit for Republicans. I do not understand why they don't embrace her. She is a warmonger just like them.

Doc, why doesn't this endear her to Republicans?

 

[Genx87]

Get ready for this to get real...






http://thehill.com/policy/defense/287479-debate-rages-in-clinton-camp-over-syria-policy

I do not understand what the goal of this type of policy is. It seems counterproductive to American interests. Do we have to be bombing and killing and disrupting Middle Eastern countries forever? Do these people even bother with a long term objective any more?

Clinton vote for the Iraq war which killed over a million Iraqis. She was the person who pushed for Libya which turned out to be a disaster. And now she wants us in Syria. This warmonger cant get enough of that Bush doctrine.

 

[Genx87]

Seriously, want to provide PROOF of that assinine claim?

Lets be real, what just happened?

The Democratic Party rigged their primary election.


And now they want everyone to believe that the Russians are behind it and that the Russians are advising and supporting Trump.

I like Stein. She had a great quote about a month ago that said everything war related Donald Trump is proposing Hillary has already done.

 

[bshole]

Clinton vote for the Iraq war which killed over a million Iraqis. She was the person who pushed for Libya which turned out to be a disaster. And now she wants us in Syria. This warmonger cant get enough of that Bush doctrine.

Why don't Republicans like her then? It makes no sense. This kind of shit is right up their alley.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Which makes her a good fit for Republicans. I do not understand why they don't embrace her. She is a warmonger just like them.

Doc, why doesn't this endear her to Republicans?

Because you don't understand Republicans...Iraq and Afghanistan left a sour taste in their mouth and their appetite for war has greatly diminished as evidenced by their clear opposition in Congress to involvement in Libya and Syria...both of which were hugely supported by Democrats.

Wake up.

 

[Genx87]

Why don't Republicans like her then? It makes no sense. This kind of shit is right up their alley.

Team politics. It is why progressives will vote for a war monger.

The only saving grace of a Trump administration is the anti-war left will suddenly come back to life.

 

[dank69]

I'll be sure to vote for the GOP so we won't have any more needless war.

 

[dank69]

Because you don't understand Republicans...Iraq and Afghanistan left a sour taste in their mouth and their appetite for war has greatly diminished as evidenced by their clear opposition in Congress to involvement in Libya and Syria...both of which were hugely supported by Democrats.

Wake up.

HAHAHA.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...hat-30-percent-would-bomb-a-fictional-country

Combining what we know about Republican bloodthirst and whatever polling you may have seen regarding Syria anyone can easily see that opposing action in Syria has more to do with opposing Obama/Clinton for the sake of opposing them rather than opposing war.

 

[Genx87]

I'll be sure to vote for the GOP so we won't have any more needless war.

Good luck. Both of these candidates are going to get us into more needless wars.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

HAHAHA.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...hat-30-percent-would-bomb-a-fictional-country

Combining what we know about Republican bloodthirst and whatever polling you may have seen regarding Syria anyone can easily see that opposing action in Syria has more to do with opposing Obama/Clinton for the sake of opposing them rather than opposing war.

Nice diversion...but the reality here is that Democrats overwhelming supported military interventions in Libya and Syria while Republicans did not.

Libya
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/493

Syria
Although there was no formal vote, Republications were largely against intervention in Syria.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...93a858-155c-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html

 

[bshole]

Nice diversion...but the reality here is that Democrats overwhelming supported military interventions in Libya and Syria while Republicans did not.

Libya
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/493

Syria
Although there was no formal vote, Republications were largely against intervention in Syria.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...93a858-155c-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html

Well here is Donald's position....

In a March 2016 debate, the candidate seemed to indicate he would be willing as president to deploy on the ground tens of thousands of U.S. troops to battle the Islamic State. ”We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS,” he said. “I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000.” Days later, Trump said in an interview that he would likely suspend U.S. purchases of Saudi Arabian oil if the Gulf country did not contribute troops to the fight against ISIS. Meanwhile, Trump called for a greater U.S. effort to disrupt the Islamic State’s access to oil revenues and “dark banking channels.”

This is my biggest issue and I literally have no choice. Both side are slathering war dogs. I wish these warmongering fucks had to send their OWN children to fight and die for this shit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I wish these warmongering fucks had to send their OWN children to fight and die for this shit.

I hear you.

 

[theeedude]

I support the US making its own foreign policy, not having it ran by Putin through a puppet president who will dismantle NATO and "make a deal" to sell out American interests.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I support the US making its own foreign policy, not having it ran by Putin through a puppet president who will dismantle NATO and "make a deal" to sell out American interests.

And that's exactly what he's going to do! lol The FUD is getting deep around here.

I don't recall your concern when Obama threw NATO allies Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus as a sacrificial pawns (regarding missile defense) in a unilateral move to appease Russia and 'reset' relations.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204518504574418563346840666

The reason given.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-barack-obama

The reality.
http://www.iranwatch.org/library/go...reports/irans-long-range-missile-capabilities

 

[dank69]

Nice diversion...but the reality here is that Democrats overwhelming supported military interventions in Libya and Syria while Republicans did not.

Libya
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/493

Syria
Although there was no formal vote, Republications were largely against intervention in Syria.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...93a858-155c-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html

I thought we were talking about the general population, not representatives. If you want to talk just representatives look no further than the GOP primary debates. It's quite clear that most of the Republicans that voted no to Libya would have voted yes had it been a GOP President pushing for it. Meanwhile, 70 Democrats did vote against it even though it was their President pushing for it, so can you at least admit that those 70 might have the best interests of our nation in mind?