Jump to content

US Elections: When Murder isn't Murder


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Point in fact, the original comment was that "Hillary" is more like Thatcher than Hillary Rodham Clinton. It's an acknowledgement of how she has painstakenly projected herself as a moderate since 9-11. The insinuation is that she, as an pro interventionist, pro regime change, pro police state Hillary has slid down the slippery slope and has become something that when she started in politics, she would've opposed. To get from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary she became something that many of us aren't confident with and view as more of the same in a long line of pro police state CIC's. Hillary has never met a regime change she couldnt fawn over, she was railing over wanting to throw out Chavez for a while as well. Ignoring that Chavez had been democratically elected multiple times.

As Katrina Vanden Heuval points out in the video, it's unfair to conflate her with Bill because she is her own person, but she goes onto say that we know some of the players and inner circle another Clinton WH will put in place on foreign policy and it's long past time to see some new faces, fresh approach and different ideas put into play on foreign policy in The Nations view. So Hillary may not be Thatcher, she's just more like Thatcher than Hillary Rodham.

This doesn't even make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

That's a euphemism if ever there was one. The "interventions" she advocated meant annihilating the Libyan government (ultimately resulting in the civil war which is still ongoing) and supplying materiel and training to the Syrian "rebels" (which failed to accomplish anything beyond wasting a great deal of money to indirectly supply the terrorists who promptly seized the materiel).

The Syrian stuff is on Kerry. While she advocated for it, the president opposed it until well after she had left office. Then when things had gotten worse, Obama authorized it. Arguably the problem was not doing it sooner; doing it two years after the conflict had really started and ISIS had gotten a major foothold was probably a bigger problem. 

And yes, she - and Obama, and Sanders, and France, and Britain, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the Libyan resistance - all wanted intervention from the US in Libya. It sucks what happened, but pinning that on her alone when basically the entire US government at all levels was okay with it seems a bit disingenuous. You have a problem with US foreign policy. That specific action wouldn't have changed with Sanders or Clinton or Obama or Kerry. 

Quote

The insinuation is that she, as an pro interventionist, pro regime change, pro police state Hillary has slid down the slippery slope and has become something that when she started in politics, she would've opposed.

And that insinuation is baseless. Clinton has been staunchly pro-intervention for her entire national political career and before that as First Lady. If she sees a situation where she believes that the US military can help - particularly in things that have a civil war type of situation or a peacekeeping force - she will want to help. The idea that this is something she would have opposed is a cute fiction. 

The comparison to Thatcher is just random sexism (as well as being totally insane). 

The pro police state - I guess that's a shot at the Patriot act? She's been pretty outspoken about wanting to curtail that too, and had reservations about it at the time - but Sanders does have her beat. Again, the notion that this is in some way comparable to what Thatcher was like is completely insane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Point in fact, the original comment was that "Hillary" is more like Thatcher than Hillary Rodham Clinton. It's an acknowledgement of how she has painstakenly projected herself as a moderate since 9-11. The insinuation is that she, as an pro interventionist, pro regime change, pro police state Hillary has slid down the slippery slope and has become something that when she started in politics, she would've opposed. To get from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary she became something that many of us aren't confident with and view as more of the same in a long line of pro police state CIC's. Hillary has never met a regime change she couldnt fawn over, she was railing over wanting to throw out Chavez for a while as well. Ignoring that Chavez had been democratically elected multiple times.

As Katrina Vanden Heuval points out in the video, it's unfair to conflate her with Bill because she is her own person, but she goes onto say that we know some of the players and inner circle another Clinton WH will put in place on foreign policy and it's long past time to see some new faces, fresh approach and different ideas put into play on foreign policy in The Nations view. So Hillary may not be Thatcher, she's just more like Thatcher than Hillary Rodham.

This... does not make sense to me either. My understanding is that Hillary Clinton has become substantially more moderate as her career has progressed, not less. Certainly, that's true in domestic policy, so unless you want to throw out every metric other than foreign policy as a way of discussing politicians' 'moderateness', I think the above is silly.

And I still don't see why Thatcher is any part of this conversation at all, except that she happened to be a woman and so does Clinton. Why not restrict the comparisons to past US Presidents? It would make more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mormont said:

This... does not make sense to me either. My understanding is that Hillary Clinton has become substantially more moderate as her career has progressed, not less. Certainly, that's true in domestic policy, so unless you want to throw out every metric other than foreign policy as a way of discussing politicians' 'moderateness', I think the above is silly.

Are you addressing a specific issue or just in general? Because I'd argue she's very slowly moved from a moderate to the left on a majority of issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

No. On this issue, she is of the same kind. The only difference between them are the opportunities they've had -- there was no appetite for another medium-sized war after Iraq so Obama and Clinton had to content themselves with several small ones.

This is pretty simplistic. If you seriously think something like Iraq Pt. 2 or Iran/Contra would have happened under Obama or Clinton... I can see why you'd vote for Trump. 

Quote

That's a euphemism if ever there was one. The "interventions" she advocated meant annihilating the Libyan government (ultimately resulting in the civil war which is still ongoing) and supplying materiel and training to the Syrian "rebels" (which failed to accomplish anything beyond wasting a great deal of money to indirectly supply the terrorists who promptly seized the materiel).

Libya was after her time. Syria was multinational coalition led by France and the UK, requested by the Arab League, with the final decision resting on Obama. But even there, neither of these were full-scale, boots-on-the-ground wars. If supporting this type of intervention counts as "hawkish" then "Bombin'" Bernie Sanders himself is a war hawk. 

1 hour ago, mormont said:

And I still don't see why Thatcher is any part of this conversation at all...

Because they both have lady parts! That makes them the same, duh! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Are you addressing a specific issue or just in general? Because I'd argue she's very slowly moved from a moderate to the left on a majority of issues.

That's probably my Eurocommie bias. :) I would say she's moved from slightly right of centre to middle-of-the-road, but that's because I have a different idea of where the centre is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

This... does not make sense to me either. My understanding is that Hillary Clinton has become substantially more moderate as her career has progressed, not less. Certainly, that's true in domestic policy, so unless you want to throw out every metric other than foreign policy as a way of discussing politicians' 'moderateness', I think the above is silly.

And I still don't see why Thatcher is any part of this conversation at all, except that she happened to be a woman and so does Clinton. Why not restrict the comparisons to past US Presidents? It would make more sense.

I can respond to this specifically, but it will have to be after my work shift. Bbl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Libya was after her time. Syria was multinational coalition led by France and the UK, requested by the Arab League, with the final decision resting on Obama. But even there, neither of these were full-scale, boots-on-the-ground wars. If supporting this type of intervention counts as "hawkish" then "Bombin'" Bernie Sanders himself is a war hawk. 

Other way around. The action that the US took in Syria was after her time. Libya was definitely on her watch, and the action in Libya was very, very popular - cheap, multilateral, saving civilians and supporting removal of a fairly hated dictator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The Syrian stuff is on Kerry. While she advocated for it, the president opposed it until well after she had left office. Then when things had gotten worse, Obama authorized it. Arguably the problem was not doing it sooner; doing it two years after the conflict had really started and ISIS had gotten a major foothold was probably a bigger problem.

Not quite. The US gave the "rebels" money and equipment long before the end of Clinton's tenure. What you are referring to is that Obama initially balked at directly giving them lethal arms (of course, they could buy these with the money, but it kept the US at a remove). That Clinton wanted to go even further and actually give them arms is not a point in her favor because much of our assistance made its way to the IS and other unsavory organizations.

Quote

And yes, she - and Obama, and Sanders, and France, and Britain, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the Libyan resistance - all wanted intervention from the US in Libya. It sucks what happened, but pinning that on her alone when basically the entire US government at all levels was okay with it seems a bit disingenuous. You have a problem with US foreign policy. That specific action wouldn't have changed with Sanders or Clinton or Obama or Kerry.

I agree with you about Obama and Kerry, but on what basis do you lump Sanders in with the rest? The only thing I can find about him and Libya is that he voted for a unanimous Senate resolution asking Gadaffi to resign and permit a peaceful transition of power. The executive branch did not see fit to ask Congress before bombing Gadaffi into oblivion so we'll never know for sure, but from everything I know of Sanders, I strongly doubt that he would have approved of such an action.

And my point is not that this should be pinned on her -- obviously, the ultimate decisions for both Libya and Syria were made by Obama. However, she advocated certain positions in these situations and, unless she was deliberately trying to sabotage Obama or some other highly implausible setup, they illustrate how she would behave when confronted with a similar crisis as President.

8 minutes ago, alguien said:

This is simplistically naive. If you seriously think something like Iraq Pt. 2 or Iran/Contra would have happened under Obama or Clinton... I can see why you'd vote for Trump.

Iraq Pt. 2 was unique. Iran/Contra is orders of magnitude smaller than what Obama and Clinton did -- it's notable for trying to get around Congress, but compared to the money we've spent in Syria alone, it's barely worth mentioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

Other way around. The action that the US took in Syria was after her time. Libya was definitely on her watch, and the action in Libya was very, very popular - cheap, multilateral, saving civilians and supporting removal of a fairly hated dictator. 

People mention Syria because of Clinton's comments about how she would have been more aggressive at nearly every step of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Not quite. The US gave the "rebels" money and equipment long before the end of Clinton's tenure. What you are referring to is that Obama initially balked at directly giving them lethal arms (of course, they could buy these with the money, but it kept the US at a remove). That Clinton wanted to go even further and actually give them arms is not a point in her favor because much of our assistance made its way to the IS and other unsavory organizations.

Per your link, the US didn't give money or arms at that point; they gave communication equipment and humanitarian aid. So...no, the US didn't give the rebels money at that point. 

Clinton's point is unprovable but fair; her argument is that they needed the money and equipment in 2011, not 2014, and that delay made them far more likely to be radicalized as they'd spent the better part of three years getting whatever they could to fight the war. 

Quote

I agree with you about Obama and Kerry, but on what basis do you lump Sanders in with the rest? The only thing I can find about him and Libya is that he voted for a unanimous Senate resolution asking Gadaffi to resign and permit a peaceful transition of power. The executive branch did not see fit to ask Congress before bombing Gadaffi into oblivion so we'll never know for sure, but from everything I know of Sanders, I strongly doubt that he would have approved of such an action.

Then apparently you don't know that Sanders authorized the US (with a coalition of other countries) to engage in a bombing attack in Kosovo - an attack that was actually much more condemned at the time than the Libyan attack. The two are pretty comparable in scope and value. Sanders also stated that he was against troops and a full war in Libya, but that was it - all he condemned was 'sustained US involvement'. Which...Libya was not. He has never spoken against what we did in Libya, not a single time, and given that it was in support of a UN resolution and had broad multinational support there's no reason to think he wouldn't support it, as he has supported every single military action that the US has been involved with that meets those requirements. 

Heck, he was one of the 10 cosponsors calling for Gaddafi to be removed. The notion that he didn't support regime change seems pretty ludicrous. 

Quote

And my point is not that this should be pinned on her -- obviously, the ultimate decisions for both Libya and Syria were made by Obama. However, she advocated certain positions in these situations and, unless she was deliberately trying to sabotage Obama or some other highly implausible setup, they illustrate how she would behave when confronted with a similar crisis as President.

I think that's reasonable, though I don't know whether or not she supports action or whether she supports a certain kind of action when action is desired. I've never claimed that she isn't willing to do intervention. But so is Sanders, so is the US, and she isn't particularly different. 

And is certainly not like Thatcher. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, mormont said:

That's probably my Eurocommie bias. :) I would say she's moved from slightly right of centre to middle-of-the-road, but that's because I have a different idea of where the centre is...

You should probably get that checked out. I hear Eurocommieness can lead to many disastrous symptoms, including but not limited to a predilection to believe that cricket is a superior sport to baseball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

You should probably get that checked out. I hear Eurocommieness can lead to many disastrous symptoms, including but not limited to a predilection to believe that cricket is a superior sport to baseball. 

There is no sport that exists that is not superior to baseball. Full-contact chess is superior to baseball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There is no sport that exists that is not superior to baseball. Full-contact chess is superior to baseball. 

You mean Chess Boxing?  I would consider it superior to baseball in virtually every respect.  Plus, we haven't made a computer that can beat us at it...yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You should probably get that checked out. I hear Eurocommieness can lead to many disastrous symptoms, including but not limited to a predilection to believe that cricket is a superior sport to baseball. 

Being Scottish, I'm naturally immune to that particular symptom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...