2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's foreign policy scares me. We will be at war for another 4-8 years.
Middle East and other conflicts will expand and we will be dragged further into them.
Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan...
That is what we're looking forward to.
When do people just get tired of all the killing and demand that our own country be treated better?
A start has been made with those demands, I know. Bernie Sanders was not that much more viable on paper than Kucinich, but look at how much better he did. That is because of the changing political climate. But still... the idea of a foreign policy by someone that we already know is a war hawk with a reckless disregard for long-term effects (even short-term ones actually) just scares and pisses me off.
Big fucking sigh.
msongs
(67,453 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And if you're honest, you will admit it likely that Hillary will.
IF you're honest, I said.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It's the one place I disagree with him.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I strongly suspect he did not want to go too much into criticism and was tacking slightly right in order to not be seen as loony (in the loony political climate we are in)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Obama seemed awfully like an anti war candidate. It appears intelligence changed his mind.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)msongs
(67,453 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...
Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...
Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"
Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"
Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Is Clinton going ot make him Secretary of State or something?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and Sen Sanders isn't. The neocons and the MIC know that Clinton will want to show how tough she is and they love it.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... PNAC flow chart out and say: "I want this one, and this one, and this one, and...." Foreign Policy will be her forte. She'll have a hotline straight to Henry. It'll be Iron Lady 2.0.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,719 posts)That is a big issue for me.
I am really tired of our country being the world's policeman.
I wish we could cut the "defense" budget way back and use that money for our own problems, of which there are many.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)They can destroy themselves and we can keep our troops home.
Response to chwaliszewski (Reply #3)
bahrbearian This message was self-deleted by its author.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's win win for Clinton
JudyM
(29,280 posts)Though I guess getting speeches provides cover for bigger donations.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)We're not really "at war" now. Vietnam was "at war". WW2 was big time "at war". Compared to either of those, the amount of military commitment we have is nothing.
We can't just sit here and pretend everything will be great if the US isn't involved. Simplistic solutions don't work.
pscot
(21,024 posts)Enough is enough. Let the Arabs work it out themselves. Or not.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)The man is open to using nuclear weapons and wants to sit down with North Korea (who endorsed him and slammed Clinton). This idea that Clinton would start all these wars is dramatically overblown.
Also what is scary is Sanders lack of foreign policy knowledge. A lack of knowledge can get the nation dragged into a lot of trouble. More trouble than you could imagine...
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)Not W, the guy in charge at the time. Most are far too obtuse to see Trump for what he is.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Or Kerry. Or Feinstein. Or the other Democrats who all supped at Bush's trough like starving pigs. They backstabbed the party, fucked over their voters - and got no small number of them killed or maimed in the process - to say nothing of the carnage wrought in the middle east.
Bush isn't running for president again. Nor is Kerry. Feinstein hasn't indicated any desire to do so, either. Nor have other pro-war democrats. Clinton however, is running for president. Do you expect a free pass on her role?
JEB
(4,748 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)Our Party leadership blocked us, and the current President gave them a virtual pardon.
And Hillary should own her stumping and vote- there was a large contingent of Dems who didn't want to go with the Bush Admin, but she did the heavy lifting needed to sway public opinion that the blank check to the Bush Admin was the right thing to do.
She and our party leadership own it. A whole mountain of tortured and dead people, a middle east in perpetual flames and trillions wasted on a 1% who cant be bothered to run the country properly.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...is really unfair.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)her supporters favor the MIC. Anything but helping those struggling among us.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)You can scare errr, nobody here, because we're all informed voters, into falling for this hypothetical worst-case scenario crap.
elleng
(131,141 posts)Robert Kagan endorses Clinton.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2099495
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Also, your post makes no sense - lots of Trump voters endorse Bernie - what are you trying to say?
Skink
(10,122 posts)HRC machine to fix that.
PufPuf23
(8,839 posts)Hillary Clinton has extensive involvement (that could be termed aggressive) in Colombia and Ukraine.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)and there is plenty of evidence to back that up.
It's not as if this is mere speculation.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)nations in solving problems. She has pledged to use the military as a last resort. I fully expect her to honor that pledge. You may or may not know this, but France and England said they were going into Libya with or without us. She was not the commander and chief, and I believe things would have been different had she been. In other words, once the decision to do something was made, she had limited input in the what. I do believe she will have the best people advising her, that she will listen to all points of view, the best diplomatic support, and she will prioritize non-military solutions first per her committment.
Edit: corrected as I typed Syria when I was thinking Libya, doh.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)BootinUp
(47,197 posts)And I mean both the content of the video, and the fact you posted it in reply to my points.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)The U.S. has made some very bad decision in the mideast. One if the worst was the ill conceived and planned invasion of Iraq. A plan that the Generals who knew the region the best said was folly. They were dismissed and replaced. Their calls not to do it went unheeded as did their warnings that it would take 300k to 400k troops at the 4 points of the compass along with the right mix of civilian experts. They also said that it was critical that the non-hard line Sunni militarily (soldiers) be reconstituted as soon as possible to give them a stake in new country or you would have 150k or so armed men looking for a paycheck to feed their families.
They were ignored. Donald Rumsfeld laughed and said he could do it with 75k troops and that it would be a "cake walk. "We would be in and out olin a few weeks and Iraqi oil would pay for it They disbanded the Sunni Army and installed a pro Iranian Shia controlled government in a a country where the Sunni'so had been the dominate military force for century's
How many years did that war last and how many trillions did it cost. 30k men and women profoundly wounded from memory 6k dead with over half a million dead Iraqi's.
This was a monumental cluster f.ck. A human tragedy. It created the environment for ISIS to form and grow. Add Syria and Libya. Libya is a hell by any measure and the entire regions has been indiscriminately armed. It' a powder keg
We have a Congress to help prevent mistakes like these. Those who voted for the Iraq war with that plan lead by the trio of Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld and their cronies did not do their jobs.
So IMO Hillary is always on the wrong side of bad and costly military decisions.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)from you.
As long as you blame her instead of Bush who lied us into that war you are right its not possible for us to discuss this.
oasis
(49,410 posts)to begin "Shock and Awe".
Senators were led to believe war would be a last resort.
These details seem to be conveniently forgotten by the AntiHills.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)And another defending her decision. .
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)Here's a write-up further explaining the facts and her explanations for her vote:
http://www.hillaryhq.com/2015/05/hillary-clinton-never-supported.html
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)However, it does not change my opinion or what I believe to be the facts. Hillary is a Hawk. She. IMO gets into this. She is now a connected insider. I would go so far as to day that Bill and her through the their political. Wall Street. Military. Media and Clinton Foundation contacts are global power broker's. I think it steers her decision making in a negative way.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)People want to believe Hillary is a "warmonger" and nobody should interfere with that delusion!
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)An investigation finds that countries that gave to the foundation saw an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.
In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom's troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.
The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department. IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countriesa 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration. The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses.
From the IBT investigation:
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of "an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority." She declared that "Qatar's overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region." She said the Kuwaiti government was "less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks." She noted that "UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups." All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department...
In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clintons State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.
The following tables created by the International Business Times show the flow of money and arms deals involving 20 nations, the Clinton Foundation, and the State Department: (see at link)
Raster
(20,998 posts)There is far more to this...far more.
In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clintons State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.
MFM008
(19,820 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Women and minorities cannot afford a Trump presidency. But, yeah, go ahead and show your true colors.
840high
(17,196 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)44. Then you must be a white dude.
View profile
Women and minorities cannot afford a Trump presidency. But, yeah, go ahead and show your true colors.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512098949#post44
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)there is no difference between Clinton and Trump. It is an absurd statement reflecting irrational hatred and callous disregard of what women and minorities will face with Trump. To claim Clinton is the same is beyond ignorant.
Welcome to my true colors.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)44. Then you must be a white dude.
Women and minorities cannot afford a Trump presidency. But, yeah, go ahead and show your true colors.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2099553
how do you feel you're qualified to tell women as a group what we can and can not afford? IF you yourself are a woman you have your own as to what you can and can not afford , but opinions may differ
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)She said both scared her the "same".
I wouldn't hesitate to post that reply again to anyone who makes that claim.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that comment? Even if you yourself are a woman it is your own opinion and nothing more
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)End of.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)what we can and can not afford? IF indeed you are a woman then you can only make that judgement for yourself
44. Then you must be a white dude.
Women and minorities cannot afford a Trump presidency. But, yeah, go ahead and show your true colors.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2099553
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)after she said so, just like the little game you are playing with me, but that would just be downright nasty. I don't need any authority to point out the obvious effects of a Trump presidency for women and minorities. I also have no authority to keep people from posting such ignorant sentiments. I do, however, currently have the right to call that shit out until the admins tell me I can't or ban me.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)elleng
(131,141 posts)#1 is flawed sense of judgment.
Robert Kagen Endorses Hillary!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2099495
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)And the very best one.
icecreamfan
(115 posts)Also, it's always very sad to see "democrats" get on board with these reckless and counterproductive regime change efforts that always end up making us less safe and leaving the other countries worse off than they were.
Mission Accomplished: the Sequel
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)No wonder "no we can't" anything but more war.
lostnfound
(16,191 posts)Is another area of concern for me.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)I'll take what we got if the other choice is full out nuclear war
Broward
(1,976 posts)betsuni
(25,645 posts)Secret kill lists, indefinite detention, chuckling at drone hits, itching to start World War 3. And now the same story with Clinton. Crying wolf for years and years makes people tired.
djean111
(14,255 posts)With Hillary as president, you will see "Democrats" enthusiastically embracing cuts to Social Security and Medicare and safety nets and further corporate giveaways like the ACA and even more of our money given to Wall Street.
Yeah, I am scared, too, and filled with revulsion. Well done, Third Way and PNAC! Well done!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)http://time.com/4113434/transcript-read-the-full-text-of-the-second-democratic-debate/
That's a lot of war right there.