Hillary : "I will not hesitate to take military action"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We're always a totally broke nation, right up until it comes to killing firing freedom bullets at brown people. Then the cash starts flowing as if we have the most efficient government in the world.

Everyone running in a major party this cycle is a war hawk and they're all being paid by the same interests that profit immensely from these objective-less wars. Our expectation should, at the very least, be "I will only consider military action as a last resort." Gotta give it to Clinton, though, she's being honest for once.

No one running is a peacenik, but some are more hawkish while others are more restrained.

[Fusionmunster]

The middle east and northern Africa are in complete chaos due partly to Obama's dovish foriegn policy in his second term. I for one would welcome a more hawkish president.

No, they are in chaos because of the mess caused by Hillary's hawkishness.

How? Innaction in Syria and Iraq were not Hillary's doing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The middle east and northern Africa are in complete chaos due partly to Obama's dovish foriegn policy in his second term. I for one would welcome a more hawkish president.

No, they are in chaos because of the mess caused by Hillary's hawkishness.

How? Innaction in Syria and Iraq were not Hillary's doing.

The problem wasn't inaction in Iraq. The problem was a $2 trillion war she supported.

[Eraserhead]

Sanders isn't a dove but he's the only one with sane foreign policy views as far as the major candidates go IMO.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Her position here is basically the same as Obama's. Not sure how a speech in support of the Iran deal counts as going "full warmonger." Ridiculous thread.

[Blair]

The middle east and northern Africa are in complete chaos due partly to Obama's dovish foriegn policy in his second term. I for one would welcome a more hawkish president.

Lol, the same dove who approved drone strikes, killed Bin Laden in a cross border raid on shaky legal grounds, bombed ISIL in Syria and Iraq and started a troop surge in Afganistan. I say this as a supporter of Obama's foreign policy.

Obama's foreign policy is the sane mix of US power where necessary in the mold of liberal intervention (Kosovo, Korea, Libya etc) whilst using diplomacy to solve issues like Iran.

On HRC it's what the official Obama line is-if they break the agreement we'll use military force. Sure she's got a record as being more hawkish but democrats seem to act like she's John Bolton .2

[Kingpoleon]

Ran side by side with Cruz's comments on the Iran Deal on FOX, this is a bunch of moderate heroism. She literally sounds like a calculated robot to Cruz's "Heil Hitler!" speech.

[Cory]

Her position here is basically the same as Obama's. Not sure how a speech in support of the Iran deal counts as going "full warmonger." Ridiculous thread.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The middle east and northern Africa are in complete chaos due partly to Obama's dovish foriegn policy in his second term. I for one would welcome a more hawkish president.

No, they are in chaos because of the mess caused by Hillary's hawkishness.

How? Innaction in Syria and Iraq were not Hillary's doing.

The damage was done by the Iraq hawks last decade.  If anything, Obama should have left Iraq by the end of 2009.  But he kept troops there right up to the deadline.

[Mehmentum]

The middle east and northern Africa are in complete chaos due partly to Obama's dovish foriegn policy in his second term. I for one would welcome a more hawkish president.

No, they are in chaos because of the mess caused by Hillary's hawkishness.

I'm undecided on how tough we should be on foreign policy, tbh.  The majority of the Republicans have absolutely ridiculous ideas about foreign policy.

However, we've had quite a few foreign policy crises over Obama's 2nd term.  I don't really put blame on Obama for that, but I can't help but think we should be doing more.  At the same time, I'm against an actual invasion of Syria.  

Invading wouldn't solve the situation. ISIS would slip underground again, and trained terrorist fighters would disperse to wreak havok all over the world.  Meanwhile we'd be stuck in another costly occupation with no real end date.  Eventually we'd get tired of spending money and losing people in a middle eastern hellhole and leave.  Once that happens, ISIS (or another incarnation of it) will pop right back up.  Unless we plan on occupying the country for a generation, we shouldn't invade.

It's clear that ISIS wouldn't exist without the Iraq war that Hillary supported. And we need the support of Iran to defeat it. But we need to quit messing up the middle east. And Hillary made it clear she will be more hawkish and more focused on the middle east, versus Obama who is more restrained and focused more on (non middle east) Asia.

You do realize that the whole 'Clinton supported the Iraq war' thing got old in 2008, right?  She admitted she made a mistake.  She was lied to (or at least misled) by the administration at the time.  Her biggest mistake in that regard is trusting the president of the United States to be truthful when it comes to something of that importance.

This isn't just about her Iraq war vote and the massive lies she gave in the speech justifying it. In 2007, she voted for Kyl-Lieberman, which allowed the Bush administration to start an Iran war. And has been hawkish in many other ways since.

What's really troubling is that you think supporting Iran is sound foreign policy that won't blow up in faces.  Between a choice of that policy or Clinton's 'warmongering', I'd go with Clinton every day of the week.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Good to hear she would have supported the rebels in Syria. That was a rare failure on Obama's part when it comes to foreign policy; unfortunately it's a mistake that we can no longer really fix.

I think it was clear that Obama wanted to help the rebels, but he also cares deeply about his legitimacy as a President. Remember, a large section of the American voting public thinks he's a Muslim foreigner who is trying to unilaterally destroy America. He has to pick his battles. Taking military action in Syria without the approval of Congress would have been bad for his legitimacy.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

We're always a totally broke nation, right up until it comes to killing firing freedom bullets at brown people. Then the cash starts flowing as if we have the most efficient government in the world.

Everyone running in a major party this cycle is a war hawk and they're all being paid by the same interests that profit immensely from these objective-less wars. Our expectation should, at the very least, be "I will only consider military action as a last resort." Gotta give it to Clinton, though, she's being honest for once.

You are right, Hillary is beating the drums - glad she is doing so publicly. She rakes in donations from the war hungry, but one part of your statement is false. Donald Trump is not funded by the military complex of this nation. He would never accept dirty moneys like that. He makes his money off the love and kindness of the American economy and making people's dreams come true in luxurious casino resorts. Also he opposed Iraq from the start. #MakeMoneyNotWar #MakeAmericaGreatOnceMore

[Thunderbird is the word]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/10/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-hawkish-think-tank-gives-militaristic-hawkish

If she still gets the nomination then foreign policy wise this election will represent the worse choice for doves since 1968.

[ElectionsGuy]

Hillary would be the worst Democratic candidate since 1968 too.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Hillary would be the worst Democratic candidate since 1968 too.

Indeed, though as far as tickets go i'd argue that Gore-Lieberman in 2000 comes pretty close to the worst.

[The Last Northerner]

Remember kids, Democrats are only against wars when there's a Republican President.

[The Last Northerner]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/10/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-hawkish-think-tank-gives-militaristic-hawkish

If she still gets the nomination then foreign policy wise this election will represent the worse choice for doves since 1968.

08 would have been bad too if she beat Obama in the primary. She did vote for Iraq and all.

[Bigby]

Remember kids, Democrats are only against wars when there's a Republican President.

I am sigging that.

[Comrade Funk]

Remember kids, Democrats are only against wars when there's a Republican President.

Not Hillary

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Remember kids, Democrats are only against wars when there's a Republican President.

Not Hillary

But, but, she said the War in Iraq was a mistake 11 years afterwords!

[Crumpets]

Remember kids, Democrats are only against wars when there's a Republican President.

Not Hillary

But, but, she said the War in Iraq was a mistake 11 years afterwords!

Well, she also said it when she was running in 2008, and I think first distanced herself in 2004 or 5.

[Cory]

Her position here is basically the same as Obama's. Not sure how a speech in support of the Iran deal counts as going "full warmonger." Ridiculous thread.

Repeated for emphasis.