Hillary Clinton talking A LOT of sense on foreign policy

[Deus Naturae]

We trained and supplied Syrian jihadists. Clinton undoubtedly is aware of this which makes it even more disgusting she's pretending to care about this and lying through her teeth.

[Deus Naturae]

Damn she's gonna be a great president.

Are you being sarcastic? Sorry but I am frankly baffled that any sane person could possibly defend Clinton's statement. It's a fact that we trained and equipped Syrian jihadists, a number of whom have now joined ISIS....and you believe Clinton when she says that if we had been more involved we would've stopped the terrorists and the good guys would've won after all? It's obvious that this warmongering bitch is lying...are you so blinded by your worship of the Democratic Party that you can't see that blatant fact??

[Deus Naturae]

Damn she's gonna be a great president.

Are you being sarcastic? Sorry but I am frankly baffled that any sane person could possibly defend Clinton's statement. It's a fact that we trained and equipped Syrian jihadists, a number of whom have now joined ISIS....and you believe Clinton when she says that if we had been more involved we would've stopped the terrorists and the good guys would've won after all? It's obvious that this warmongering bitch is lying...are you so blinded by your worship of the Democratic Party that you can't see that blatant fact??

Have you no regard for the fact that the Free Syrian Army is distinct from ISIS, and is actually the only force that has proven capable of decisively defeating ISIS? You are delusional. A partisan Democrat would take your position and claim that Obama was right not to intervene in Syria. That a large number of Democrats are now admitting that position is false is evidence that some of us actually look at the empirical facts on the ground and are NOT just blind to partisan ideology. In fact, if you will look at my posts from back in 2013, I was opposed to intervention as well. I was afraid of training jihadists as well, that is why I opposed intervention. What has changed since then? Well, the facts on the ground have changed. ISIS has clearly used U.S. non-intervention to gain is own sphere of influence in western Syria, which it then used to take over northern Iraq. Clearly, if Assad had been decisively defeated in 2012, the Free Syrian Army would not have tolerated the likes of ISIS. ISIS is very unpopular in the areas where it rules. To the extent that other militias join it, it is only because they see it as the winning side, and there are tons of Qatari dollars and other petrodollars from shady Saudi princes pouring into their coffers. This could have been checked in 2012, but Obama chose not to.

We did intervene in the conflict though....by training and supplying jihadists who have now joined ISIS. Clinton is undoubtedly aware of this fact, yet she has the gall to claim that if we had intervened further, we wouldn't have armed jihadists and the FSA would've won. She is a blatant liar and her supporters are either ignorant or in denial at this point.

[Deus Naturae]

We did intervene in the conflict though....by training and supplying jihadists who have now joined ISIS. Clinton is undoubtedly aware of this fact, yet she has the gall to claim that if we had intervened further, we wouldn't have armed jihadists and the FSA would've won. She is a blatant liar and her supporters are either ignorant or in denial at this point.

Wow. You are sinking low. Surely you must be aware that WorldNetDaily and BeforeItsNews are less credible sources than your everyday Murdoch tabloid. The IBT article doesn't say that the U.S. trained ISIS... it says the U.S. trained some Syrian rebels in Jordan. That's no secret. Then it goes on to speculate that "A USA-ISIS tie-up is plausible, considering the fact how the CIA was responsible for the strengthening of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan." So basically their evidence that the U.S. trained ISIS is to point to the CIA activities in Afghanistan 30 years ago, and imply guilt by association. Sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US trained Syrian jihadists in Jordan so that they could fight in the Syrian Civil War. The Army was already planning to fight alongside or at least use jihadists in the conflict. You think that suddenly would've changed had we decided to do more in Syria!?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you yourself are no doubt aware, the FSA is not the only Syrian rebel group. There are also jihadist groups...which we trained and supplied to fight in the conflict, and are now (or already were when we trained them) members of ISIS. Did you even read the article I linked to?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

False leap much? You're listing a bunch of reasons why Assad is terrible (which I obviously agree with)...and then drawing the conclusion that if we'd intervened to stop him we would've successfully destroyed his regime, set up a stable and non-despotic one in its place, and ISIS wouldn't be a problem in Iraq. You need to justify all of those links, especially the last one since it's the most dubious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You basically ignored the IB Times article I linked (and get others if you want) and claimed it said something it didn't. You're the one who needs to get your head out of the sand and take a look at the heads chopped of by Syrian jihadists we trained in Jordan to fight in the Civil War.

[Deus Naturae]

Deus,

Look man, the bottom line of this is that we need to get past the whole idea of "anyone we arm in the Middle East is going to turn into Osama bin Laden OMGZ the '80s! Benghazi!"

The reality is, 90% of people in Syria and Iraq, no matter what side they are on, do not want to live under ISIS-style shariah law, with beheadings and all. Have some formerly more moderate militias joined ISIS? Sure. Not for ideology... because ISIS was beheading those that didn't join them or revolted against them. Because ISIS had by far the best equipment. Cities surrendered to Genghis Khan, too. Yes, any time we arm someone, train them, there's always a risk, there's always a leap of faith. But it's better than the alternative of having no allies in the region at all, and just crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. If we have no friends, enemies will fill the vacuum.

So, you're claiming that the rebels we trained were just forced to join and fight for ISIS? I really doubt that. Based on the Ib Times article as well as this, it sounds like they were already members of ISIS, though it isn't exactly clear. ISIS really doesn't strike me as the sort of group to force non-believers to fight with them...more likely they would've just beheaded any moderates they defeated. Our current "allies" in the region have directly funded ISIS, so the "vacuum" that would supposedly com into beings if the US stopped meddling in lands millions of miles from our shores sounds pretty good right now.

But, let's just assume that these people were actually moderates who all just happened to be captured and forced to fight by ISIS. Clinton's statement is still 100% ridiculous, and she knows it. Training even more of these people would not have stopped ISIS from rising...you still have yet to justify this absurd claim and have now changed your story from "training and arming more rebels would've stopped ISIS" to "well the rebels we trained joined ISIS but that was just an accident and they had to have been moderates."