2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton Syria Fact Check: "Safe Zones" = "Ground Troops"
Clinton Syria Fact Check: "Safe Zones" = "Ground Troops"Robert Naiman
Truthout
CLINTON: ... And, to -- provide safe zones so that people are not going to have to be flooding out of Syria at the rate they are. And, I think it's important too that the United States make it very clear to Putin that it's not acceptable for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing people on behalf of Assad, and we can't do that if we don't take more of a leadership position, which is what I'm advocating.
SANDERS: Well, let's understand that when we talk about Syria, you're talking about a quagmire in a quagmire. You're talking about groups of people trying to overthrow Assad, other groups of people fighting ISIS. You're talking about people who are fighting ISIS using their guns to overthrow Assad, and vice versa. I'm the former chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, and in that capacity I learned a very powerful lesson about the cost of war, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that the United States does not get involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. We should be putting together a coalition of Arab countries who should be leading the effort. We should be supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria.
CLINTON: ...Well, nobody does. Nobody does, Senator Sanders.
Clinton's claim that "nobody" supports sending US ground troops to Syria was fundamentally misleading, because whoever calls for the US to establish a "safe zone" in Syria - as Clinton did in her previous utterance to which Sanders was responding - is calling for "ground troops."
Whoever calls for the US to establish a "safe zone" in Syria is basically saying, "I agree with John McCain that we should send US ground troops to Syria." Or else they are saying, "I believe in calling for a policy to be implemented without supporting the means to implement it." Or else they are saying, "I believe in calling for a policy to be implemented without understanding or caring what means would be necessary to implement it." Or else they are saying: "I believe that General Austin was lying when he said that ground troops would be necessary to establish a 'safe zone.'" What are the other possibilities?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randys1
(16,286 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)All negative about Hillary.
Rarely does the poster respond. Just hit and run flame bait.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I wonder if well meaning liberals on DU, actual liberals, understand they are being manipulated by Karl Rove right here at DU?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Not mad at Karl Rove, that is. Mad at the poster who pointed it out.
randys1
(16,286 posts)
riversedge
(70,182 posts)is delightful
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Yes it is.
randys1
(16,286 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Note, that information available to anyone who can use Advanced Search.
Sid
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)or just those that post against HRC? Rhetorical.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Just those who come to the attention of MIRT.
When MIRT is alerted to a poster that might potentially be an intruder, we take that concern seriously and discuss whether that poster is, indeed, an MI. Often that requires us to read through a poster's posting history.
Sid
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Do some in MIRT have access to poster's ISP addresses?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)you should know this by now, rick. You've been here long enough to know how MIRT operates.
MIRT members have only the tools that are available to all DUers. As star members, we can use the Advanced Search function, just like any DU star member can.
Sid
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)You can whine about people posting about it if you wish. That doesn't make it go away.
randys1
(16,286 posts)But you see I am a liberal and a Democrat, so what I am doing is predictable.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)But carry on.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)democrats and liberals.
period
You cant win 
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Hillary's record of foreign policy belligerence is one of the main reasons I don't support her candidacy. From the Iraq war vote to the Libyan disaster to backing rightist coupmakers in Honduras. And she wants to flex her muscles in Syria, too. No, thanks.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)posting. I guess that's what's done when there is a lack of responses.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Where people get to voice their support and their criticism of the candidates.
randys1
(16,286 posts)is that discussion or is that an agenda?
Real liberals and democrats will wonder
artislife
(9,497 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)I do because I am a liberal and a Democrat.
Well, I am actually a socialist but there is no viable socialist party
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)times by members of the administration, and the proposals included US air support but no US ground troops.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)enforce boundaries, keep the peace, distribute supplies? The whole purpose of her proposal is to poke Russia in the eye, which is fucking stupid because we have NOTHING AT STAKE IN SYRIA--NOTHING. Her judgment is awful, but then it always has been.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)His own country has HALF the population gone. No one in this world can make those 12 million homeless people feel safe enough to come home except that countries "Leader."
It's not Americas job to create a safe zone for millions of people. Let Assad and his buddie Putin work with the UN, and the refugee humanitarian crisis centers on any safe zones for 12 million people.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)12 million HAVE NOT left Syria.
About 4 million have left and about 7 million are internally displaced.
They are not fleeing Assad, but are fleeing the civil war and endless violence. You didn't see people pouring out of Syria before this started.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Anybody remember the glorious Strategic Hamlet Program in 1964 Vietnam?
riversedge
(70,182 posts)said. Simple as that.
Nitram
(22,781 posts)If she said "no one does", she means it. Stop putting words in her mouth.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)From the article:
This fact was made clear by a well-publicized exchange in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on September 16 between Sen. John McCain, chair of the committee, and General Lloyd Austin, head of US Central Command ["CENTCOM"], in which McCain pressed General Austin to say that he favored establishing "safe zones" in Syria and General Austin refused to do so, on the grounds that a "safe zone" would require a "ground force." The video of the exchange is here. The full video of the hearing is here.
McCain: Would you recommend a no-fly zone in Syria?
Austin: I would not recommend it at this point, sir.
McCain: ... Would you recommend telling -- setting up a buffer zone in Syria where these refugees might...
Austin: It will take a ground force to be able to protect the refugees if we do that, sir.
McCain: Would you support a buffer zone which would then protect some of these refugees ...?
Austin: I don't see the force available to be able to protect them currently, sir. So I would not recommend it at this point in time.
Nitram
(22,781 posts)And we all know that McCain was asking him questions because he knew what he would answer in advance. Interesting how the old fly-boy is so keen to get ground troops involved wherever possible.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Nitram
(22,781 posts)You have more than two choices. Unless you're digital.
