Last edited Fri Jun 26, 2015, 02:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I used to think Hillary would change the world for the better and I thought it pathetic all the haters who couldn't handle a tough, smart woman. It was all on their insecurity. But facts are facts and I don't support the War Party...ever. The universe will sort those out who supporting killing after we pass on but I'm not supporting it one bit now. Besides...she is deep in collusion with the Bush family and considered a rare, honorary family member of that horrific clan

Clinton doesn't want anyone to cluster bomb civilians.

Saying she didn't want civilians bombed is about as meaningful as Kerry saying he didn't want war when he voted(with HRC) for the IWR. It doesn't matter if you want something when your actions cause that something to happen.

And there was no military justification for cluster bombs. There was no situation in Iraq where those were the only weapons that could possibly have worked-because ultimately, there was never any real possibility that any weapons in our arsenal coul have won what was always an unwinnable war.

But that is because I interpreted "bombing noncombatants" to mean "bombing targeted at noncombatants." You seem to be using the expression more broadly to include any bombing that predictably harms noncombatants. I guess I don't want to be dogmatic and say that your usage is incorrect. So maybe I should withdraw my objection to the headline. I hereby withdraw it.

The problem is that in Iraq, there is no clear delineation between the combat- and non-combat zones.

civilians too.

Other than we aren't using them enough I mean...

How is this a Republican attack?

But my job in the military required me to know the specs to every tactical weapon that could be deployed. I am here to tell you those should be taken off the table of use and thought of the same way as a nuke as far as use. I also have a big issue with land mines which is what those end up being which I think are already banned.

or
the Ban on Cluster Munitions
or
a ban on depleted uranium ammunition
or
a ban on White Phosphorus


The US HAS signed a ban on using Napalm... but then changed the formula a little, ans started using it again under a new name.
The USA used this new Napalm in Fallujah to help make an example (War Crime).

Vote for Bernie.

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department (could be a coincidence)

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.
ADVERTISING

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

King of Morocco donates $1 million to Clinton Foundation

WASHINGTON — Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton is endorsing the illegal exploitation of disputed lands and risks undermining four decades of UN diplomacy by taking money from Morocco, critics say.

Clinton, who's expected to announce her candidacy for the Democratic nomination April 12, has come under fire for accepting foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, most recently a $1 million donation from OCP, a fertilizer giant owned by the Moroccan government. Left unsaid in the initial reports: OCP — the Office Chérifien des Phosphates — is a major player in the exploitation of mineral resources from the Western Sahara, a disputed territory known as the “last colony in Africa” that Morocco took over after colonial power Spain abandoned it in the 1970s.

“You’ve heard of blood diamonds, but in many ways you could say that OCP is shipping blood phosphate,” Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., told Al-Monitor. “Western Sahara was taken over by Morocco to exploit its resources and this is one of the principal companies involved in that effort.”

A co-chairman of the Western Sahara Caucus and the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, Pitts is one of a small handful of lawmakers willing to buck Morocco, a longtime US ally that runs a massive lobbying and PR operation in Washington. On April 10, he sent a letter to the Clinton Foundation, first obtained by Al-Monitor, along with House Foreign Affairs human rights panel Chairman Chris Smith, R-N.J., asking the foundation to refund the money and “discontinue its coordination with OCP.”

<snip>

At issue is OCP’s operation of a mine in the Western Sahara town of Boucraa, from which phosphate rock — a key ingredient for making fertilizer — is dumped onto the world’s longest conveyor belt to make its way toward the coast, 60 miles away. According to a 2002 legal opinion by the UN, the exploitation of natural resources from so-called non-self-governing territories such as the Western Sahara is only legal if done to benefit the local population.

OCP and Rabat have started a lobbying blitz to persuade the world that Morocco, which claims the Western Sahara as its own, is spending far more money developing the desert region than it is making from the exploitation of its natural resources.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/hillary-clinton-morocco-blood-phosphate-money-donation.html#

US Lobbying & PR Efforts from Morocco to the Obama Administration





http://www.al-monitor.com/lobbying/morocco#

This is the main issue at play in Morocco-Western Sahara

The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) was proclaimed by the Polisario Front on 27 February 1976, in Bir Lehlu, Western Sahara. SADR claims sovereignty over the entire territory of Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony; however, at present the SADR government controls only about 20-25% of the territory it claims.[1] It calls the territories under its control the Liberated Territories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic

States supporting Moroccan claims on Western Sahara



List of African countries include Sudan & Central Africa Republic one of the top 3-5 countries on genocide watch. I'm getting tired of not only allying with brutal human rights violators but also selling them weapons all because of business.

Can't wait to see the corpses that will now be shown to illustrate Bernie's 2003 vote to indemnify arms traders and weapons manufacturers.

Wait until Hillary is losing, that's when the really despicable shit came out last time.

If I recall correctly Clinton justified her vote by saying that the cluster munitions could be more discriminate / not kill civilians (ie, let me guess, they're AI controlled with their own thrusters or some crap?). So she didn't want to rule out them being better at killing only bad guys.

It was the stupidest thing I ever heard.

If you're going the landmine route "we have tens of millions of landmines in the DMZ in North Korea / South Korea, so we can't ban them" then I can understand the practicality of that vote. But there's really no need or use for cluster munitions. They are wholly indiscriminate. More so than drones, more so than tactical missiles. They just rain hell on people.

It's that I don't think she is evil or anything.

Clearly she doesn't want children to be hurt.

BUT, that's the thing. I don't get the feeling that she has enough conviction for anything to overcome her impulse to do the politically expedient thing.

It's the same for he defense of DOMA or opposition to marriage rights. I don't think she is a begot or a homophobe... it is that I don't think she CARES enough about those things unless there is a political cost/gain analysis done.

And so, she is in the end a politician, a consummate politician and an ambitious one.

I've had quite enough of them already.

She has always calculated, for better or worse. She went to prayer breakfasts with members of the family to push anti trafficking legislation, while voting for cluster munitions.

It's possibly the definition of political expediency.

It has always happen in war and will continue. The OP is flamebait as an anti Clinton thread...so, I'll just move along.

Unexploded cluster bombs 'bomblettes' look like colorful balls, toys to children. When they pick them up the bomblettes explode.

we need a CIC that will reserve war as a last resort to defend our nation.

One woman was on the right side of history, and it wasn't Hillary

I'm sure she's evolved on this issue, too!!