2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton backs decision to send US commandos into Syria
http://bigstory.ap.org/d61d39c06c1f46f8b3677e2b4a30369b&utm_source=android_app&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=shareIt's not a surprise. It is a sign of what we can expect from Hillary if she were POTUS.
More war, more war, more war.
She has learned nothing from the last 14 years of US war.
----------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton supports the decision by President Barack Obama to deploy a small number of special operations forces to northern Syria to work with local ground forces in the fight against Islamic State militants.
Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement that Clinton "sees merit in the targeted use of special operations personnel." He added that Clinton also strongly "supports ongoing diplomatic efforts to end the conflict."
But, he said, she opposes the U.S. entering a larger ground war in the Middle East to combat the rise of Islamic militants.
As secretary of State, Clinton advocated for a more aggressive U.S. role in the Syrian conflict. Earlier this month, she called for a no-fly zone over the area, a move the administration opposes.
Clinton's main challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, said through a spokesman that he has "concern about the United States being drawn into the quagmire of the Syrian civil war which could lead to perpetual warfare in that region." Sanders reiterated in the statement that he believes the "crisis in Syria will be solved diplomatically, not militarily."
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)War, war, war! Kill, kill, kill!
She is dangerous. She should NEVER be President.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Does that mean Barack Obama shouldn't be Commander In Chief since he ordered it and if that is your opinion would you support his impeachment and ultimate removal from office?
Thank you in advance.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)I doubt he would be President. As with Hilliary supporting it now, She shouldn't be President.
Martin Eden
(12,872 posts)... providing there was a candidate who was clearly a better option.
Fortunately, in the 2016 primary we do have a candidate who is clearly a much better choice in terms of war & peace and reigning in the perpetual war of the military industrial complex.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If I wasn't an empathetic person I would respond in kind to your deeply personal and vicious attack but being the empathetic person that I am I can see you are still working your way through Elisabeth Kubler Ross' Five Stages Of Grief and are still in the Anger Stage.
As an empathetic person I will be there for you every step pf the way, all the way to the final stage which is Acceptance.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I suggest you look inward.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Okay.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I have real affection and admiration for you and I believe vice versa. And yes, maybe I should dig a little deeper for empathy. I stand by my post, but wishing you well is where I want to leave it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I am sorry for the confusion.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)And I did get a chuckle out of the "infinite well" part. Your droll turn of phrase sometimes brightens my day.
Peace to you, brother.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)She opposes the U.S. entering a larger ground war in the Middle East to combat the rise of Islamic militants.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Don't be so naive.
50 military advisors. Ha ha,
bowens43
(16,064 posts)she cant wait to start playing with her soldiers.......
Response to JaneyVee (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cprise
(8,445 posts)Bill swallowed the lie during his Presidency. Hillary just accepted the lies for 5 years and never said a peep about the 1998 Act.
It wasn't just IWR, and she can't pretend she was bum-rushed into it with lies.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)And before you ask there are many things I disagree with Sanders on. Check my recent $15 minimum wage thread.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Iraq since the day he took office.
They were sure he'd never take them out ... and not that he has ... they are SURE he's going to send them all back.
When he doesn't do as they've been predicting, they'll scream that Hillary will send 150k back in.
50 targets in the middle of a fight with no friends. A perfect justification for all out invasion if they attacked by anyone from any direction. Syria is a shit show we have no place in.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)All for the good of...of...what was the reason this time?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It is their quintessential being.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Iran, like ISIS, benefits from chaos and strife.
Clinton proclaimed that she too [is] deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and the need to confront it. Its a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of Americans, many others and including its own people on its hands. Even worse, she said, Its political rallies resound with cries of Death to America. Its leaders talk about wiping Israel off the face of the map, most recently just yesterday, and foment terror against it. There is absolutely no reason to trust Iran. She repeated that claim several times for emphasis: They vow to destroy Israel. And thats worth saying again. They vow to destroy Israel.
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-hawkish-think-tank-gives-militaristic-hawkish-speech
Its the old neoconservative lies and psychosis.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)et voilà ... We Have Always Been At War With Eastasia.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)"we can't turn our backs on a fallen comrade, send in more troops" Viet Nam redux
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Autumn
(45,114 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Support boots on the ground.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)Thank you Bush.
riversedge
(70,253 posts)Not much difference at all with Sander's statements. This headline is in line with what Clinton actually said than the OP.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/hillary-clinton-obama-syria/index.html
Clinton 'sees merit' in Obama's decision to send troops to Syria
Dan Merica-Profile-Image
By Dan Merica, CNN
Updated 9:18 PM ET, Fri October 30, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina (CNN)Hillary Clinton on Friday cautiously supported President Barack Obama's decision to authorize the use of special forces in Syria.
Clinton "sees merit in the targeted use of special operations personnel to support our partners in the fight against ISIS, including in Syria," according to a statement released by her campaign spokesman, Nick Merrill.
"Of course she opposes the U.S. getting into a ground war in the Middle East," Merrill said. "And she strongly supports ongoing diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, address the suffering, and bring all of Syria's communities together to confront ISIS."
BeyondGeography
(39,376 posts)Everyone wants a diplomatic solution, the question is how best to get there. Whatever your feelings on the matter, Obama obviously saw sending troops as something he needed to do in tandem with bringing Iran to the table. It's seen by most observers as symbolic, not as the first step in the run-up to a ground war in the ME.