to know

As hawkish as she is, as much as I dislike that, oh, and as much as she isnt on board with Glass STeagall (which makes me mad as hell) , I can ASSURE you if ANY body from the other side wins the WH, a WORLD WAR is all but a certainty.

AT A MINIMUM we would have tens of thousands of dead American soldiers somewhere

BTW, how's your work with the Sanders' campaign going these days?

She's Thatchers mini-me.

And Thatcher did the Faulklands war purely to increase her power, so she'd be seen as a war-PM. And apparently Bush 43 and company often compared themselves to her and cited her reasoning around this issue. It makes for a sociopathic foreign policy. It's really frightening.

It is very common shorthand to refer to the government of a particular country in that way. I suspect it is even moreso in the state department.

EDIT: I think it would probably be worth it for her to reach out to the people who sent the letter and address their concerns. But I think everyone knew exactly what she meant.

These are the same folks that six months ago would have attacked anyone here for trying to suggest that an internet poll is representative of true opinions out there (even DU's own internet poll contains a disclaimer) but since internet polls a few days ago said that Bernie won the debate they are now defending internet polls as the true representation of who won the debate.

For what it's worth I think you are correct on both counts.

THAT is what we expect of a future leader!

I have many Persian friends, some of them my best friends in life, and they are human beings just like the rest of us.

We have a whole new generation of Persians that could make for a strong ally in the middle east, and not the demons that so many on the right and Clinton appears to be also doing when she just says "Iran" with no clarification on who she considers her "enemy" there and just saying "the Iranians" insults this newer generation that I think largely likes being literate, especially on the internet that the former generations don't share with their experience. They aren't their parents that have had to deal with a more repressive religiously lead Ayatollah government that was used by the Reagan administration to further their ends too. They've not had to deal with the Shah and SAVAK who worked with the CIA to brutalize many of those older generations, that has set them against us in the past, and I think are open to being a new Iran that works with the world rather than being a problem for it to solve.

Instead of saying something like "the Iranians", she should have sent something like "the remnants of past Iranian leadership that is out of step with a new generation there and the world community that wants a different Iran that works with us to solve problems over there."

Something like that would show someone that understands the subtleties of what is going on over there and one who is equipped to make the middle east a better place rather than one that will continue to be a potential space for more wars.

Here he refers to "the Palestinans" and "the Israelis." He needs to be specific to avoid any confusion!

That whole page has him distinguishing entities like Israel's Netanyahu, and Hamas's actions, that he doesn't support. In context, we can see how he is characterizing Palestinians collectively as an entity and Israel as a collective entity, and those who are in those entities and their roles there.

When Hillary just calls "Iranians" her enemy, with no further specificity in that response, then she's not clear on she feels are her enemy over there, and basically helps promote the harmful generalizations that have been made over all Persians as if they are all guilty of holding our people hostage over there. Iran is a complicated country now, and it is important to be specific on looking at who is our "enemy" over there and who isn't, when asked a question like that.

It would be like Turkish leadership going after "Kurds" as all of the Kurds are "bad" for them, to the point where they are killing those that might attack ISIS who is also attacking Turkish and American interests there, and even the candidate that the former Ataturk's secular party who ran against Erdogan in a previous recent election had Kurdish heritage himself. If Turkish leadership simplifies all "Kurds" to be like those in the PKK who exercise extreme terrorist attacks there (even if many of them feel like they might be justified for what some Turks have done to them too), then it is creating a similar problem.

That is why we need leadership that is careful who they call their "enemies" without being specific on who they are speaking of, to not promote bigotry, which is a national problem in this country that we need to find ways of stopping to move towards a healthy democracy that we once had again. Republicans are the worst at this sort of thing. We don't need to fuel their bigoted ways.

You just made my point for me.

... that is not specific enough to help average American voters know who she really holds as "enemies" so that they can see why she might not like them. When says that term, people can extrapolate that she doesn't like Iranians in any capacity.

I think I'm done here.

... and was descriptive about what groups of people in those two entities of "the Palestinians" and "the Israelis" mean as a group of people with collective responsibilities as those groups. He was specific in the rest of the language and discussion on that page. He didn't need to parse words in that area. Hillary Clinton gave no additional information in her comment to be more specific on which Iranians she had as her enemy and why they were her enemies. That promotes nationalist bigotry in my book.

If other countries just said that they find their biggest enemies are "the Americans", rather than something like "American military industrial complex supporting groups" or something like that for a simple one line statement, it calls everyone here as their enemy without specificity, and lumps our party in with Republicans as both being "enemies". Which is a more healthy way for other countries to look at and criticize who they have problems with here, being specific, or making more nationalistic dismissive comments like "Americans"? And who's to know they aren't talking about "The Americans" television show who's talking about Russian spies here back in the 80's!

I like Israeli groups like J-Street that try to help build a peaceful solution in that area, and do absolutely NOT like AIPAC, which is a coalition of right wing Netanyahu like Israelis with our military industrial complex that influences so much of our policies in the wrong direction too. I feel the need to make that specificity when I talk about Israelis, as a way to show that I'm not just being anti-semitic, but someone that wants a solution that works for all groups of people over there to facilitate peace.

be declaring a government that we are struggling to a peace agreement with as an enemy of pride and satisfaction?

Irresponsible, arrogant, and dangerously stupid. The snarky, mean girl teenager in the room not any adult.

The defense is ridiculous.

I understand your concern about the wisdom of the sentiment she expressed, and I won't argue with you. My quibble is with the disingenuous claim that she was smearing all Iranian people.

response foolish at best and dangerous at worse.

Where is all the asserted experience, knowledge, and wisdom? Foreign policy chops my ass. That was a TeaPubliklan level stupid comment.

...and I say this even as a Bernie supporter.

Whether *that* was a smart thing to do, though, is a whole other question. Obama/Kerry just completed a very difficult negotiation with Iran (which HRC supports), which is supposed to provide a foundation for more cooperation in the future. I don't know if it is ideal for our next president to proudly refer to Iran as an enemy. When we see an Iranian leader talk negatively about his country's relation with the U.S., it is used as fodder for the hawkish Republicans. I don't think her comment here served us well in terms of how it will be perceived by the people of Iran. It was suprisingly undiplomatic, for someone who's previous position was, essentially, our chief diplomat.

On Thu Oct 15, 2015, 07:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I think everyone understands that she was referring to the government of Iran.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=685403

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Nothing really wrong - just thought it would be funny to alert on Skinner.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 15, 2015, 07:53 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Are you serious? Don't waste time like that.

Ok, I did chuckle when I saw it was a "Skinner" post. But the alerter's, comments are just sad
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Let's teach Skinner a lesson!! lol
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with the alerter. Nothing wrong with this post at all but still funny to vote to hide so...
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "The person who sent the alert wrote: Nothing really wrong - just thought it would be funny to alert on Skinner."


Well.....that's kind of pointless, isn't it?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am number 6. A little disappointed it didn't get hidden it would have been funny even if not an appropriate hide.

And yes. She clearly meant the government.

And of course her detractors know this.

she should have said so.

you'd think a seasoned sos would be better experienced in using proper language....maybe instead of trying to be cute and glib on stage, she should have paid better attention to her words.

i guess her handlers did not anticipate that question..its amazing what we can learn when people speak in uncoached moments.

I would say the same is true of all the responses...

The correct response to the question is... I don't take pride in making enemies. We can all find common ground.

Unfortunately no one made that response.

Again, she did very well and certainly exceeded MY expectations. But this is just one of a NUMBER of flubs that show how ridiculous the claim is that she turned in a flawless performance. All of the media hyperbole on her behalf is simply calling into question their own legitimacy.

She is obviously pandering.

She was obviously referring to Iran govt.

It was NOT obvious to Americans! Especially many of them that look at Iranians with more racial and religious bigotry, rather than looking at the different factions over there more carefully. If she wants to be a leader, it is HER DAMN JOB to be specific so that Americans can know who she's referring to and be guided by good judgement of a leader to help them judge who is the problem over there and who are the people that we can work with to make things better.

Obama just did some big agreement with them. At least it's not too classy for a presidential candidate to be calling them an enemy.

Are they the enemy?

I'm more concerned with her lantern fish-like ability to lure unsuspecting Americans to her corporate dinner.

we recently reached a major deal with.

Definitely stunned me when I heard it.

Someone who came from Iran and now lives in the US and has become an American citizen is an American, not an Iranian.

I don't know whether the person who is complaining about this is actually an Iranian citizen or not, but if that person is an American citizen, there should be no reason to complain about a reference to "Iranians."

Same for Palestinians and Israelis.

This is a problem with language. Everyone knew what Hillary meant when she referred to Iranians -- the Iranian government.

Language is very imperfect. People who understand a language well know how to derive the intended meaning of a word with multiple meanings from the context.

I'm a huge Bernie supporter, but I'm sorry, I think this is a bit of a petty complaint about Hillary.

I want to be fair, and I don't think the OP is.

And, I don't respond favorably to flag waving and "tough" foreign policy statements.

What enemy are you most proud of !

My god !!!

Iran blew up neighbors Canada and Mexico as the US did to Iraq and Afgahnistan?

represent as president. Imagine how we'd feel if a Republican president had openly identified Democrats in general as the enemy. That is a terrible thing to say.

Many of me Si ilian-American relatives are Republicans, as was my father when he was alive. My Republican relatives are, in my opinion, politically misinformed and misguided, but they are good people and I love them. The are not "the enemy."