Hillary Clinton talking A LOT of sense on foreign policy (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 03:19:23 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Hillary Clinton talking A LOT of sense on foreign policy (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Hillary Clinton talking A LOT of sense on foreign policy  (Read 2118 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,043


« on: August 10, 2014, 10:11:55 PM »

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.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,043


« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2014, 10:35:02 PM »

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.

The people who have been calling for a stronger ing U.S. response in Syria for years now have never said all we need to do is train one or two militia group to go into Syria and get ground up. They've always been saying that we need to provide significant arms and enough aid to get the Free Syrian Army the upper hand in the war. With such equipment they would have eradicated ISIS in early 2014. Even without such equipment they dealt ISIS the most severe blow in its history in January and February 2014, driving them out of huge chunks of Syria, even while fighting Assad's forces at the same time. They've also been massacred by ISIS. To continue to conflate these people with ISIS is an insult.

They're fighting a dictator who responded to peaceful protests, remember, by gunning down people in the street, including his own Alawites in 2011, and has since killed 100,000+ of his own people, likely used chemical weapons to gas thousands of children, has systematically used starvation, deprivation of medical supplies, terrorism of the civilian population, barrel bombs, and blockades to compel his people into submission, and to top it all off is aligned with an anti-American bloc of Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran. For years, people such as myself, have not been strong enough in speaking out against this man, for fear of supporting jihadists. But with the rise of ISIS, this has not only become a moral catastrophe for American foreign  policy, which if we have a shred of compassion left will be seen as our generation's Rwanda 5 years from now, but have become a strategic and military catastrophe as well. Osama bin Laden's dream is finally true that there is a Caliphate in the middle east.

People like Robert Ford, our ambassador to Syria, have been speaking out on this issue for years, and I and many others owe him an apology. The number of people who still have their heads stuck in the sand is unbelievable.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,043


« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2014, 10:49:07 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 10 queries.