Support NeoGAF

[Justin]

He's been in the House and Senate for over 20 years. He shouldn't "need to get better on foreign policy" after that long. If he is at the point he is at now it is because he just isn't interested in it.

Or it's because it isn't part of his stump /zing

 

[Lemaitre]

From day one to the day of, Bush's administration was warned dozens of times about those attacks.

And how did those warnings turn into anything even remotely useful for the administration? Did they stop the attacks? Did they make the right decisions after the fact?

So, given tangible warnings we see a commander in chief who did nothing with them. And that's implying the "dozens" of warnings could be utilized into any realistic action to stop the hijackings

 

[RustyNails]

Rubio isn't a leader either. When he comes out and criticizes Obama for speaking at a mosque and 'dividing' America, he just comes across as petty and petulant.

When Rubio says Obama is dividing America by going to a Mosque and giving a speech to Muslims, he's simply saying "Stop interrupting our Muslim hatefest. Gosh ur SO divisive"

 

[Abinash117]

I say Hillary fared far more better on the economic side this time around than in previous debates. She really did put a few good shots at Bernie, and did a slightly better job at defending herself on most of the issues. I think she really held her ground well and enough to combat Bernie. I think this debate was probably one her much better showings.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I think a good chunk of democrats support the death penalty, but most of GAF is slightly young, progressive, and probably not registered as a Democrat. I say it shouldn't be too surprising that most people are against the death penalty.

The death penalty should be abolished, and to my mind, it's madness to feel otherwise.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Quite frankly I find it odd that people criticize a possible President for caring more about her/his country than the world out there. The U.S. has to stop trying to game-plan for the whole world. That's why we neglect the home turf dawgs.

Foreign Policy is important.

But usually it boils down to these small skirmishes that we get ourselves into in the Middle East... When really it should be more about how we would work with the EU, Russia, China, Japan, and other Allies.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Most people don't really care about foreign policy. They care about health care, college tuition and money in politics. This is some of the reasons I think Bernie is the better candidate. Most people care about the issues Bernie is putting forward.

Bernie doesn't have the votes to change any of those things. And where is the money going to come from? I work at a public university and we already have a massive budget shortfall this year even with significant tuition rises in recent years. Health care spending comprises about a third of the US federal budget and he's proposing to take it up to over 55% of the federal budget if you're estimating things conservatively (and is proposing middle class tax increases to get it done). Money in politics will require a liberal Supreme Court and a good case to overturn Citizens United (or a 66% supermajority of the house and senate for a constitutional amendment).

In other words, it's all pie in the sky nonsense.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

While I agree he's relying upon it too much its literally why we're fighting ISIS right now.

At some point non-interventionists need to accept that the rise of ISIS had more to do with Syria imploding than Iraq. Even if Iraq never happens the Syrian people would still have risen up against Assad. Obama chose to not get involved and in the chaos that ensued ISIS became a real threat. In general, I want the US to scale back its military but we have to accept that there are also consequences to inaction.

 

[Blader]

Interesting. I didn't know that. And as I said I've never given it much thought.

I guess killing someone who was later found innocent would be something insanely terrible.

Yea, I could definitely be talked into getting rid of it.

Not would be, is. Innocent people have been executed, and innocent people have spent years, if not decades of their lives, on death row. Some figure of innocent people are serving on death row right now.

 

[Lemaitre]

That line of thinking makes it where you can't use anything for anything. lol

Please explain how dynamic, constantly changing and complex events of the world (and the people that inhabit it) are equatable to "anything"?

We're talking about what specifically? The crux of the matter is that being knowledgeable about A doesn't mean that it will prepare you more for Z.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Bernie doesn't have the votes to change any of those things. And where is the money going to come from? I work at a public university and we already have a massive budget shortfall this year even with significant tuition rises in recent years. Health care spending comprises about a third of the US federal budget and he's proposing to take it up to over 55% of the federal budget if you're estimating things conservatively (and is proposing middle class tax increases to get it done). Money in politics will require a liberal Supreme Court and a good case to overturn Citizens United (or a 66% supermajority of the house and senate for a constitutional amendment).

In other words, it's all pie in the sky nonsense.

Well the money would come from taxes. Duh.

Also what the hell is your university spending money on?

 

[stupei]

Quite frankly I find it odd that people criticize a possible President for caring more about her/his country than the world out there. The U.S. has to stop trying to game-plan for the whole world. That's why we neglect the home turf dawgs.

That's not what people are doing at all. It'd be fine if Bernie sounded knowledgable but disinterested. He doesn't. He sounds clueless in the middle of a debate after the primaries have already begun. That's worrying because, as you yourself keep saying, you can't predict the future and so extensive knowledge of foreign affairs is always important. You can't just say "these are the only things I need to know about the rest of the world right now." It's all important. America is not and cannot be an isolationist country. It's just not possible.

Well the money would come from taxes. Duh.

Also what the hell is your university spending money on?

Yeah, like that wall street tax that has zero chance of passing.

 

[nib95]

He didn't have an idea of what to do in Afghanistan, and his Iran-Saudi Arabia coalition idea for ISIS isn't feasible.

Of course it's feasible. Having a pre-emptive attitude of pessimism is about the worst thing one can do in these sorts of delicate situations. The last thing you want to do is allow things to get worse or remain the same. And his basic plan in Afghanistan was to eventually get the troops out. It seemed as though he just didn't want to commit to a date or anything specific, but would you? These things are dynamic and dependant on circumstances.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Yeah, like that wall street tax that has zero chance of passing.

Probably, yea.

So do we just never tax Wall Street then, or even try? Just curious.

Because if you're already giving up before even trying...

 

[rex]

To say that it is such an none event is incorrect and in fact very insulting. I surprised some one even said that.

You realized that this is the first time in decades that someone actually annexed a part of a country, right? The first time in decades that a war appeared in Europe and the first time in awhile that relations to the west and Russia is has bad as during the Cold War.

Lastly, how the hell it isn't expansionist when they took control of part of a country through military force and then proceed to destabilize the country through supporting people in a mini-civil war?

I don't think that's the correct lens through which to view Russia's actions. We're talking about the future right, and what Russia is likely to do. Hillary and others have said it. There's worry about the Baltic states and other countries.

My point is we can't only look at Russia's distasteful tactics here. We have to look at what they're trying to do. And it seems that they're simply trying to retain a portion of their former ally.

If that's the case, the threat is limited to Ukraine and there's little reason to think Russia has designs on other countries.

Russia probably sees their actions as defensive, and as maintaining the balance of power with the West. If not, then Putin certainly seems to have slow walked his plans for Continental domination so far. What's taking the guy so long?

Also, let's keep in mind that Western sanctions have been totally ineffective. So not only has the US jeopardized US-Russian relations, they've done it while totally failing to deter Russia's actions there. When are Western leaders going to be held to account for their failure to deter this supposedly expansionist Russia?

The non-interventionists are not in charge. The neocons and liberal hawks, as far as i can tell, are still calling the shots. Yet they produce nothing but failure. You'd think with the amount of security threats they've identified in the world they'd get one of them right. But nothing.

 

[Lemaitre]

Foreign Policy is important.

But usually it boils down to these small skirmishes that we get ourselves into in the Middle East... When really it should be more about how we would work with the EU, Russia, China, Japan, and other Allies.

FP is important but it's a hierarchy. Everything that we do neglects something else. I'd rather have more improvement on the home front and neglect FP to gain that. I'd rather lift people out of poverty, provide higher education that's free, and shore up taxation on the wealthy/corporations (among other things) than care about our delicate relationship with Japan.

 

[Blader]

And how did those warnings turn into anything even remotely useful for the administration? Did they stop the attacks? Did they make the right decisions after the fact?

So, given tangible warnings we see a commander in chief who did nothing with them. And that's implying the "dozens" of warnings could be utilized into any realistic action to stop the hijackings

Uh, I'm not really sure what you're trying to drive at, I'm just pointing out the idea that it was impossible for Bush to be prepared for 9/11 is ridiculous given the 30+ warnings his administration (not Bush himself, who never saw any of that intel) received about those attacks from intelligence heads that were batted away over and over again.

 

[danm999]

Of course it's feasible. Having a pre-emptive attitude of pessimism is about the worst thing one can do in these sorts of delicate situations.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are not going to join together to sort out ISIS.

 

[royalan]

What constitutes acceptable to you? How does that acceptability have anything to do with global events that cannot be foreseen?

You can't use concrete events today to judge hypothetical situations of the future.

Well, answering questions on foreign policy as it stands today more directly instead of constantly retreating to "Well, back in 2002..." would be a start. None of the questions on foreign policy tonight really required candidates to have psychic powers and predict the future; they required candidates can demonstrate an understanding of how foreign policy and diplomacy works. To understand who our allies our and the various threats we face from our enemies. Bernie failed on this.

 

[Abinash117]

The death penalty should be abolished, and to my mind, it's madness to feel otherwise.

Getting into a moral issue that the death penalty should be gone is my view pointless and something that is a lot down to world view. Getting rid of it legally is something that is going to be challenging through a state level and a federal level. If people really want to get rid of it then it needs to go through Congress at this point the climate really isn't there for the foreseeable unless many people are going to campaign against it now . I don't imagine Hillary or Bernie attempting to get rid of it.

 

[Zona]

Of course it's feasible. Having a pre-emptive attitude of pessimism is about the worst thing one can do in these sorts of delicate situations. The last thing you want to do is allow things to get worse or remain the same. And his basic plan in Afghanistan was to eventually get the troops out. It seemed as though he just didn't want to commit to a date or anything specific, but would you? These things are dynamic and dependant on circumstances.

No, it's not. Not without both countries changing to the point that their unrecognizable. The idea of them working together is about as likely as Ann Rand and Karl Marks beginning a passionate affair and writing an economic textbook together.

 

[UltimaPooh]

FP is important but it's a hierarchy. Everything that we do neglects something else. I'd rather have more improvement on the home front and neglect FP to gain that. I'd rather lift people out of poverty, provide higher education that's free, and shore up taxation on the wealthy/corporations (among other things) than care about our delicate relationship with Japan.

We're an ever increasing globalized world... FP will only get more important as time goes on.

Yes, domestic issues are really important to our day to day lives, but if people really cared about domestic issues they would vote in their districts, they would vote in their cities and states... not just come around and vote for the president and congress every 4 years. Anyway... That was a tangent.

Our relationship with the world is how we get to a great domestic plan and vise versa.

 

[nib95]

Iran and Saudi Arabia are not going to join together to sort out ISIS.

Why? Iran and Saudi Arabia already are fighting ISIS in different ways, because ISIS has grown to become a threat to both. Just because they play side politics, in arming or empowering different factions that provide political benefit, does not mean they can't unify against the greater single threat.

 

[Suikoguy]

Please explain how dynamic, constantly changing and complex events of the world (and the people that inhabit it) are equatable to "anything"?

We're talking about what specifically? The crux of the matter is that being knowledgeable about A doesn't mean that it will prepare you more for Z.

But you could say that about anything! In that case what is the point of life, or experience for that matter?

Why hire anyone with experience for anything, you never know what might happen!

That just an hilarious line of thinking.

 

[RustyNails]

Of course it's feasible. Having a pre-emptive attitude of pessimism is about the worst thing one can do in these sorts of delicate situations. The last thing you want to do is allow things to get worse or remain the same. And his basic plan in Afghanistan was to eventually get the troops out. It seemed as though he just didn't want to commit to a date or anything specific, but would you? These things are dynamic and dependant on circumstances.

I think it's less to do with pessimism and more about dealing with the devils you already have. Obama and Kerry practically begged Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other friendly Gulf states to send boots on the ground. They all refused, saying ISIS is America's problem (because we refused to take out Assad, now pay the price). There is nothing that will convince the friendly Gulf nations to send in troops, let alone asking Iran to join. Saudi and Iran have severed ties recently over Al Nimr's execution. Asking Iran to join is so far fetched you might as well ask Canada to send it's troops. It's the best, most ideal solution. But realistically there's 0.0% chance of it Iran and Gulf states joining hands.

 

[Ogrekiller]

FP is important but it's a hierarchy. Everything that we do neglects something else. I'd rather have more improvement on the home front and neglect FP to gain that. I'd rather lift people out of poverty, provide higher education that's free, and shore up taxation on the wealthy/corporations (among other things) than care about our delicate relationship with Japan.

The problem with that is if there is a sudden crisis that occurs on the USA that is clearly of foreign origin people would invariably look towards the person most perceived to be qualified in that area, or the one that looks toughest.

Nothing motivates people more about foreign policy when presented with undeniable proof that outsiders are here to mess up your way of living.

 

[stupei]

Probably, yea.

So do we just never tax Wall Street then, or even try? Just curious.

Because if you're already giving up before even trying...

I don't really understand the line of thinking from Bernie supporters that being reasonable in expectations and wanting to put energy toward goals that are actually something that can be accomplished is "giving up."

Wanting things you can't possibly have but feel courageous asking for feels much more like the defeatist approach to me, but I suppose this is where different perspectives come from.

Maybe one day we'll be able to implement a tax on wall street, but it's not happening anytime soon. Certainly not when any of these candidates are in office. It would require a pretty extensive overhaul of most members of Congress, including quite a few Democrats.

So where is the money coming from now?

 

[Zona]

Why?

A few centuries of religious conflict, a struggle for regional hegemonic power, decades of attempts to undermine the other by both parties, proxy wars... Amongst other reasons.

 

[nib95]

I think it's less to do with pessimism and more about dealing with the devils you already have. Obama and Kerry practically begged Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other friendly Gulf states to send boots on the ground. They all refused, saying ISIS is America's problem (because we refused to take out Assad, now pay the price). There is nothing that will convince the friendly Gulf nations to send in troops, let alone asking Iran to join. Saudi and Iran have severed ties recently over Al Nimr's execution. Asking Iran to join is so far fetched you might as well ask Canada to send it's troops. It's the best, most ideal solution. But realistically there's 0.0% chance of it Iran and Gulf states joining hands.

The Guardian | Saudi Arabia offers to send ground troops to Syria to fight Isis

A few centuries of religious conflict, a struggle for regional hegemonic power, decades of attempts to undermine the other by both parties, proxy wars... Amongst other reasons.

ISIS has grown to become a much bigger threat to both nations. I think differences can and will have to be be set aside to deal with the greater evil.

Saudi Arabia does not want to help Assad remain in power. Any strategy to deal with ISIS that ignores him is DOA. Saudi Arabia and Iran are already fighting a proxy war against each other in both Syria and Yemen.

Even in the article you linked:

They only care about stopping Iran from helping Assad.

Right, but as Russia themselves have hinted at, it could come with measures to have Assad step down at a certain point in time, or with certain other conditions or incentives.

 

[damisa]

Why?

Saudi Arabia does not want to help Assad remain in power. Any strategy to deal with ISIS that ignores him is DOA. Saudi Arabia and Iran are already fighting a proxy war against each other in both Syria and Yemen.

Even in the article you linked:

Saudi sources told the Guardian that thousands of special forces could be deployed, probably in coordination with Turkey.

Both countries are committed to the removal of Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and have grave doubts about the prospects for a political settlement of the crisis without further military pressure on Damascus. Saudi Arabia and Turkey set up a military coordination body a few weeks ago. “There is frustration with the current efforts put in place to fight Daesh,” said the Saudi analyst Mohammed Alyahya. “Increasingly, it seems that none of the forces on the ground in Syria (besides rebel groups) is willing to fight Isis. The Assad regime, Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah are preoccupied with fighting Bashar al-Assad’s opposition with one ostensible goal: to keep Bashar al-Assad in power, irrespective of the cost in innocent Syrian lives.”

They only care about stopping Iran from helping Assad.

 

[Justin]

It's not wrong to say you would like them to work together. It's a little short sided to tout that as a policy though.

 

[gutter_trash]

IMO.

I think the UK and the US should cut off ties with Saudi Arabia and impose sanctions on them

 

[Lemaitre]

But you could say that about anything! In that case what is the point of life, or experience for that matter?

Why hire anyone with experience for anything, you never know what might happen!

That just an hilarious line of thinking.

It's true though. Just because someone's experienced doesn't mean they can actually do the job specifically.

Secondly, you're speaking in broad generalizations. Please provide concrete/tangible examples if you really want to have a discussion.

Such as: Being more knowledgeable about current foreign policy (during a televised debate) means that the individual will react better to unforeseen and unpredictable global events.

 

[ShironRedshift]

Getting into a moral issue that the death penalty should be gone is my view pointless and something that is a lot down to world view. Getting rid of it legally is something that is going to be challenging through a state level and a federal level. If people really want to get rid of it then it needs to go through Congress at this point the climate really isn't there for the foreseeable unless many people are going to campaign against it now . I don't imagine Hillary or Bernie attempting to get rid of it.

Nah. I agree with I believe it was HylianTom on this--if anything's going to affect the current state of the death penalty, it will be the Courts. Particularly because even in the unlikely event that something did somehow make it past Congress in regards to it, that something would the inevitably wind up before the Court sooner or later regardless and thus it would wind up being the Court's ball regardless.

That said, it's for that reason that while I personally don't agree with Clinton's stance on the matter and definitely agree with Sanders in terms of the death penalty, nonetheless I agree that it's not worth particularly focusing on that much because while the two of them disagree, it ultimately would not be something that would fall under their perversion as a theoretical President regardless beyond their ability to appoint judges to the courts, in which I feel that both Sanders and Clinton's would end up making similar choices and thus it in no way pulls me more towards one than the other since the extent of their effect on the matter would very likely be extremely similar despite their personal differences in opinion on the matter.

 

[RustyNails]

FP is important but it's a hierarchy. Everything that we do neglects something else. I'd rather have more improvement on the home front and neglect FP to gain that. I'd rather lift people out of poverty, provide higher education that's free, and shore up taxation on the wealthy/corporations (among other things) than care about our delicate relationship with Japan.

This is a ridiculous, laughable position. Presidency is not a juggling affair. You need to deal the fuck out of 200 different things on that hot seat at the same time while calling the drone shot to take the most wanted terrorist in Syria out with a 51% chance of mass civilian casualties. You don't get to pick and choose your priorities, they choose you. You are still the leader of the 120k troops, and you get daily briefings in the situation room on the world threats. You can't skip those meetings like they're your literature class.

 

[Dixon's Jet]

Probably, yea.

So do we just never tax Wall Street then, or even try? Just curious.

Because if you're already giving up before even trying...

Exactly. Sanders says he will fight, he does not say he will magically get Republicans to stop being republicans.

We're ready now for someone who will fight. We need that President and Sanders is the guy for the job.

 

[danm999]

Why?

Because who takes over after they've "dealt" with ISIS and removed Assad?

 

[Suikoguy]

It's true though. Just because someone's experienced doesn't mean they can actually do the job specifically.

Secondly, you're speaking in broad generalizations. Please provide concrete/tangible examples if you really want to have a discussion.

Such as: Being more knowledgeable about current foreign policy (during a televised debate) means that the individual will react better to unforeseen and unpredictable global events.

The more I think about it, we should get rid of license requirements for driving and flying. Since learning about and preparing for driving and flying will does not mean it will prepare you for what might happen.

 

[RustyNails]

The Guardian | Saudi Arabia offers to send ground troops to Syria to fight Isis

Wait and see. It's a bluff against Iran. Whatever happened to their "muslim NATO" coalition thingy that they announced with pomp and fanfare?

 

[nib95]

Because who takes over after they've "dealt" with ISIS and removed Assad?

Well, I'm sure relevant parties will put themselves up to the task. There could even be some sort of democratic process. These are things that will have to be discussed, pursued or come later down the line, but the biggest threat and issue right now is ISIS, and preventing them from becoming an even bigger issue.

 

[noshten]

What you gotta ask your self is what a voter seeing this as the first debate of the Democratic cycle - so we shall see if the rating are different than the Sunday/Saturday/Friday schedule DNC has been using.

And if it was someone who was interested in foreign policy - Definetly Clinton
If you were interested in tackling money in politics - Sanders

The rest of the issues discussed don't really define this debate. There were clearly two things which each opponent has the best expertise at exposing the other. They don't really attack each other but there are certain jabs. Its no wonder Hillary is trying to go on the offensive on Sander's strong points but it's difficult. While Sanders seemed to have no interest in really calling out any of Hillary's positions on foreign policy other than the Iraq war.

We shall see how many watched the debate and how it effects the polls in the coming weeks. But it surely was the best one on the Democratic side and I though both did well overall and I find it hilarious that someone has the notion that Trump/Cruz can beat either in a GE.

 

[UltimaPooh]

I don't really understand the line of thinking from Bernie supporters that being reasonable in expectations and wanting to put energy toward goals that are actually something that can be accomplished is "giving up."

Read what was posted again and get back at me. That sentence was not a reasonable expectation... It was cynicist sarcasm brought forth to try to defeat an idea to get money for all these things. You really want to put energy to things we can accomplish? Perhaps you shouldn't waste it on sarcasm in a discussion of how we could get things done.

Wanting things you can't possibly have but feel courageous asking for feels much more like the defeatist approach to me, but I suppose this is where different perspectives come from.

Don't really understand this line of thought. It's more courageous to be a pragmatist? Okay.

Maybe one day we'll be able to implement a tax on wall street, but it's not happening anytime soon. Certainly not when any of these candidates are in office. It would require a pretty extensive overhaul of most members of Congress, including quite a few Democrats.

Here's an answer I was looking for.

Yeah it will be tough... I don't have any illusions about that... and I'm sure it will be brought forth with compromise. Good thing as a Bernie supporter... Part of his message is changing the system bottom up... which means asking for people to vote in the right kind of congress if we really are serious about getting these changes through.

No I don't think a Wall Street tax will happen over night when Bernie is elected.

So where is the money coming from now?

Oh hey there again.

 

[reckless]

Wait and see. It's a bluff against Iran. Whatever happened to their "muslim NATO" coalition thingy that they announced with pomp and fanfare?

The Arab allies fighting against ISIS have refused to say how many airstrikes they have carried out against ISIS. Pentagon statements reveal that half the Arab countries in the coalition have carried out no bombing in Iraq and Syria at all.

Bahrain and Jordan haven't dropped any bombs in months, according to a U.S. official speaking on background about the actions of allies, and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates bomb about once a month.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/middleeast/islamic-coalition-isis-saudi-arabia/

For some reason I don't think they will follow through with the whole major ground war in Syria idea...

 

[danm999]

Well, I'm sure relevant parties will put themselves up to the task. There could even be some sort of democratic process. These are things that will have to be discussed, pursued or come later down the line, but the biggest threat and issue right now is ISIS, and preventing them from becoming an even bigger issue.

If Saudi Arabia or Iran invade Syria, remove ISIS and Assad it will be to set up a puppet Sunni or Shia state, and there will likely be another civil war soon after. The idea they'll work together to create a democratic state (Saudi Arabia isn't even a pretend democracy for goodness sake) is laughable.

 

[nib95]

If Saudi Arabia or Iran invade Syria, remove ISIS and Assad it will be to set up a puppet Sunni or Shia state, and there will likely be another civil war soon after. The idea they'll work together to create a democratic state (Saudi Arabia isn't even a pretend democracy for goodness sake) is laughable.

Not work together to create a democratic state, or even to help Syria, but to take on ISIS, as it poses a threat to both nations. They essentially don't have a choice. They have to deal with this growing problem, whether together or not. But the US can certainly attempt to broker relations.

What occurs in the aftermath is a separate consideration, but the situation certainly cannot be left as is, I think both would agree on that.

 

[Lemaitre]

The more I think about it, we should get rid of license requirements for driving and flying. Since learning about and preparing for driving and flying will does not mean it will prepare you for what might happen.

So now you're equating licensure and requirements of knowing specific tasks in order to pilot a mechanical device to general foreign policy knowledge?

 

[Psychoward]

The president doesn't get to choose what issues come up, they got to deal with what happens when it happens.

Too bad Hillary's foreign policy is ass. Experience is great and all but that doesn't matter if the outcome is bad.

 

[Suikoguy]

So now you're equating licensure and requirements of knowing specific tasks in order to pilot a mechanical device to general foreign policy knowledge?

I don't know why you can't get this but;
Knowledge and Experience help prepare you for an unknown future.

That you posit that it does not is baffling and amusing.

 

[ApharmdX]

Too bad Hillary's foreign policy is ass. Experience is great and all but that doesn't matter if the outcome is bad.

Absolutely. And on this subject, I didn't hear a question about drone strikes, the ignoring of horrific collateral damage, and the questionable practice of naming all combat age males killed in these strikes as enemy casualties. Was one asked? I would assume that Hillary would continue the expansion of these, as we've seen under Obama?

 

[UltimaPooh]

I don't know why you can't get this but;
Knowledge and Experience help prepare you for an unknown future.

That you posit that it does not is baffling and amusing.

This is all true. Pay attention.

But it's not always a hard rule, especially when you'll have plenty of advisors.

Obama had no Foreign Policy experience, and for the most part he has been getting things done and moved forward.