Support NeoGAF

[Mael]

I like the tacit assumption that the US is only down on Assad because of Clinton.

 

[Azih]

I like the tacit assumption that the US is only down on Assad because of Clinton.

Who is assuming that in this thread?

 

[noshten]

Nah, we are just pragmatic. Sometimes you have to suck it up and know that if you do the progressive thing and stay out of it, hundreds of thousands of people will die. None of us here want to police the world. We aren't republicans. Obama and Hillary dont want to police the world, but they are pragmatic leaders who know that sometimes it's necessary to get your hands dirty to do the right thing.

if you want people who stick to their principles no matter what, go vote for Ron Paul and Tea Party Republicans.

Except Obama wasn't elected on the back of pragmatism, he was elected with a mandate to change the neocon foreign policy of Bush Jr. It was a major factor of separation between Obama and Clinton in 08. Where she pushed the pragmatic/experienced angle and lost.

 

[Mael]

Who is assuming that in this thread?

After the Arab spring and the way Assad handled the opposition you can't possibly come to the conclusion that the US would have handled things any differently.

Except Obama wasn't elected on the back of pragmatism, he was elected with a mandate to change the neocon foreign policy of Bush Jr. It was a major factor of separation between Obama and Clinton in 08. Where she pushed the pragmatic/experienced angle and lost.

Her package of proposition lost, I don't think you pin at any one thing in her platform for foreign policy to say that THIS is why people voted for Obama instead of Clinton.
If anything most elections aren't won because of foreign policy issues (wartime election notwithstanding)

 

[SlimySnake]

The US issued an ultimatium, the Taliban tried to neogtiate, the US said fuck you to that and HERE WE ARE. This is not diplomacy. And what's the consequence? Afghanistan is still shit and Pakistan is way shittier than it was before.

I'm from Pakistan and I'm very well aware that Pakistan was way better off before 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan than it is now. There is a clear link here Slimy. Also the ISI cultivate the Afghani Taliban which aren't the same as the Pakistani Taliban. The Pakistani Taliban's attacks make it harder for the ISI to support the Afghani Tablian and the Afghani Taliban are pretty unhappy with their Pakistani counterparts because of that. Anyway interesting tangents aside my point isn't to defend Pakistan for anything. It's just to point out that there's a hell of a lot of blame to spread around and treating Pakistan as the scape goat to end all scape goats is dishonest and isn't an accurate reflection of reality.



My point here isn't to blame Hilary for everything. That's a strawman some are raising here. My point is that Hilary's foreign policy instincts are terrible and she's a hawk based on her positions. Hell if she lives up to her hawkish rhetoric on Iran one of the greatest FP achievements of Obama, starting to break the vice like grip Saudi has over US Middle Eastern policy, will be rolled back.

You have a lot more faith in the Taliban than I do. They were clearly stalling and trying to smuggle him out of there.

I also agree that Pakistan is one of the many countries to share the blame. My intention was not to put the blame solely on Pakistan. I dont think i did that but i am too lazy to go back and check.

MOST of the blame for the state of the world we find ourselves in today goes to the Bush Admin for starting the Iraq War and for sending only 10k troops to Afghanistan, and not securing the Pakistani/Afghan border. Some goes to Pakistan for not securing the Pakistani/Afghan border and allowing terrorists to travel freely b/w the two countries. I understand its a tough area to secure and monitor but no one even tried. It also took Pakistan years to finally go after terrorist havens like the Swat Valley. Just look at what Imran Khan tried to do and what that achieved. 150 school children slain. I guess you cant be diplomatic with these animals.

As for Iran, I dont know maybe she was playing bad cop while Obama played good cop? I guess we will have to see what Hilary does in office. I would like to believe that Kerry will stay on as Secretary of State so he will curb some of her 'hawkish' tendencies. I know Bill will be in the white house and there is no way he's going to let her run amok. She might end up deploying ground troops in Iraq to defeat ISIS and then you can tell me i told you so, but I still dont know if there is another solution to this.

Lastly, let's not forget all the good Hillary did mending relations and cleaning up after the Bush admin. That's what bugs me the most, before bengazhi, she had record approval ratings. She was more popular than Obama and was widely considered as one of the best secretary of states in recent history. Then Bengazhi happens and republicans painted her as reckless, hawkish and now Bernie sanders are repeating the same bullet points. What about her accomplishments?

 

[RedSparc]

Nah, we are just pragmatic. Sometimes you have to suck it up and know that if you do the progressive thing and stay out of it, hundreds of thousands of people will die. None of us here want to police the world. We aren't republicans. Obama and Hillary dont want to police the world, but they are pragmatic leaders who know that sometimes it's necessary to get your hands dirty to do the right thing.

if you want people who stick to their principles no matter what, go vote for Ron Paul and Tea Party Republicans.

This comment as a whole is disguising. Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of our direct involvement, using those deaths as a reason to become involved is some fucked up cognitive dissonance.

Why are the deaths caused excused? Death is death. Death doesn't protect death. That is cowards logic.

You are a coward, not pragmatic.

 

[noshten]

Lastly, let's not forget all the good Hillary did mending relations and cleaning up after the Bush admin. That's what bugs me the most, before bengazhi, she had record approval ratings. She was more popular than Obama and was widely considered as one of the best secretary of states in recent history. Then Bengazhi happens and republicans painted her as reckless, hawkish and now Bernie sanders are repeating the same bullet points. What about her accomplishments?

It's pretty much revisionist history on your part.
You don't realize that what Republicans are painting her with has nothing to do with the problems she faces from the left. Obama was elected to stop neocon policies, if you think the far left was happy with Obama's foreign policy I'm guessing you don't really visit places news/opinion sites like democracynow or commondreams. Obama's first four years have been hugely disappointing from a foreign policy perspective. The ex-SoS in a debate called Iranians her enemies so her rhetoric as a presidential candidate is deeply concerning. Lets not even get into her ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
It's funny how I'm repeating the same bullet points, since these bullet points have been present since 2008 when Obama used them to attack Hillary.

Her package of proposition lost, I don't think you pin at any one thing in her platform for foreign policy to say that THIS is why people voted for Obama instead of Clinton.
If anything most elections aren't won because of foreign policy issues (wartime election notwithstanding)

Right the Iraq war was a minor issue in 2008...................

 

[SlimySnake]

This comment as a whole is disguising. Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of our direct involvement, using those deaths as a reason to become involved is some fucked up cognitive dissonance.

Why are the deaths caused excused? Death is death. Death doesn't protect death. That is cowards logic.

You are a coward, not pragmatic.

lmao. tell me what you really think.

You may have misunderstood my post. There is nothing in there that warranted such a response.

 

[RedSparc]

After the Arab spring and the way Assad handled the opposition you can't possibly come to the conclusion that the US would have handled things any differently.



Her package of proposition lost, I don't think you pin at any one thing in her platform for foreign policy to say that THIS is why people voted for Obama instead of Clinton.
If anything most elections aren't won because of foreign policy issues (wartime election notwithstanding)

No, she lost because she backed a republican policy for war that embarrassed America.

The only reason obama has gotten away with it is because the amount of American deaths have been drastically reduced thought the use of drone bombing, which is just as bad if not worse in terms of policy.

 

[Azih]

After the Arab spring and the way Assad handled the opposition you can't possibly come to the conclusion that the US would have handled things any differently.

I'm not assuming that one way or the other. It has no bearing on my point that Clinton is incredibly Hawkish. I'm fully open to the idea that this puts her in the mainstream of American politics.

You have a lot more faith in the Taliban than I do. They were clearly stalling and trying to smuggle him out of there.

Maybe. Maybe not. Too bad no one tried to find out before startin' the killin'.

I don't think we're disagreeing on too much here as far as world politics go. I think what we differ on is how Hawkish Clinton is. She's certainly not a dove. What are her Secretary of State accomplishments that you're impressed by Slimy? Her current language on Iran is disheartening.

 

[Mael]

This comment as a whole is disguising. Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of our direct involvement, using those deaths as a reason to become involved is some fucked up cognitive dissonance.

Why are the deaths caused excused? Death is death. Death doesn't protect death. That is cowards logic.

You are a coward, not pragmatic.

If you care that much about the death and suffering caused by the action of your government I suggest you find another planet to live in autarky.
We've cause countless deaths just by pushing our industry in developing countries and demanding a production method that invariably lead to the death of their workers.
By doing something and even not doing something you either enable a higher death count or cause the death toll to rise.
Not every situation is as clear cut as Iraq invasion.
Heck after 9/11 there was just no way there wasn't going to be an operation in Afghanistan.
Any way you slice it, the blood bath in Afghanistan was going to happen with any administration you could find.
Find me someone who could have avoided that and I'm pretty you're going to find someone who would have been fired on the spot.

Right the Iraq war was a minor issue in 2008...................

No, she lost because she backed a republican policy for war that embarrassed America.

The only reason obama has gotten away with it is because the amount of American deaths have been drastically reduced thought the use of drone bombing, which is just as bad if not worse in terms of policy.

The only difference between Obama's platform and Clinton's was in the foreign policy?
Also as far as the US people is concerned, drones are a net gain.
You don't send little Jimmy to death for a made up reason, you still end up with civilian casualties BUT you don't send Americans in harms way to be traumatized by the horrors they do on foreign soil.
That's a marked improvement that I don't think anyone would argue it's better to send ground troupes.

I'm not assuming that one way or the other. It has no bearing on my point that Clinton is incredibly Hawkish. I'm fully open to the idea that this puts her in the mainstream of American politics.

Then clearly that's not going to change come next January when the next Administration is going to roll whoever is getting the white house.
and by that I mean it's going to be any less "hawkish", it can be worse if you have someone like Trump though.

 

[SlimySnake]

It's pretty much revisionist history on your part.
You don't realize that what Republicans are painting her with has nothing to do with the problems she faces from the left. Obama was elected to stop neocon policies, if you think the far left was happy with Obama's foreign policy I'm guessing you don't really visit places news/opinion sites like democracynow or commondreams. Obama's first four years have been hugely disappointing from a foreign policy perspective. The ex-SoS in a debate called Iranians her enemies so her rhetoric as a presidential candidate is deeply concerning. Lets not even get into her ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
It's funny how I'm repeating the same bullet points, since these bullet points have been present since 2008 when Obama used them to attack Hillary.

Oh it's funny alright. It's funny how the far left bought into bs Obama attacks on Hillary as if he was really going to be the messaih the far left thought he was going to be. How did that work out for you guys?

And now you are doing the same thing with Bernie. Eating up his far left agenda and promises. Give me a break. Looking back, we should've elected Hilary who had the experience working with these nutjob republicans not the one term senator who spent two years in office funding the Iraq war then left senate to campaign the next two years hitting Hillary from the left.

I did use to listen to democracy now on radio everyday but i have become disillusioned with far left ideologies. They are nice on paper but the reality is much much harsher and as shitty as Israel and Saudi Arabia are, we need them. If I were president, I would cut ties with SA tomorrow until they give women rights and stop the public beheadings. I would cut ties with Israel until they stop building settlements. And cut their aid if they invade Gaza again. But I know the world isnt that simple.

There is a reason Obama went from a far left candidate to a pragmatic president. There is no room for a far left president in world Bush left us.

 

[RedSparc]

lmao. tell me what you really think.

You may have misunderstood my post. There is nothing in there that warranted such a response.

There is no misunderstanding "Sometimes you have to suck it up and know that if you do the progressive thing and stay out of it, hundreds of thousands of people will die."

The assurance you have in people dying does nothing to address that fact that millions of people did die due to OUR involvement in iraq. So to sit here and say hundreds of thousands of people will die if we do the progressive way vs millions that have died doing the pragmatic way is utter bullshit.

Killing millions to save thousands is cowardly.

 

[Mael]

There is no misunderstanding "Sometimes you have to suck it up and know that if you do the progressive thing and stay out of it, hundreds of thousands of people will die."

The assurance you have in people dying does nothing to address that fact that millions of people did die due to OUR involvement in iraq. So to sit here and say hundreds of thousands of people will die if we do the progressive way vs millions that have died doing the pragmatic way is utter bullshit.

Killing millions to save thousands is cowardly.

Where the fuck did you see anyone in this thread giving any justification for the Iraqi invasion?

 

[RedSparc]

The only difference between Obama's platform and Clinton's was in the foreign policy?
Also as far as the US people is concerned, drones are a net gain.
You don't send little Jimmy to death for a made up reason, you still end up with civilian casualties BUT you don't send Americans in harms way to be traumatized by the horrors they do on foreign soil.
That's a marked improvement that I don't think anyone would argue it's better to send ground troupes.

When little jimmy is your brother and goes off and dies in a war started for made up reasons, perhaps you'll understand then that even on the other end of a drone bomb there is likely innocent people dying.

 

[Jinaar]

I think at the end of the day, when you step into Washington, you're basically told what the mandate is going to be for your time there and to step into line. Nothing good comes out of US foreign policy it seems.

 

[BearFlexington]

I think at the end of the day, when you step into Washington, you're basically told what the mandate is going to be for your time there and to step into line. Nothing good comes out of US foreign policy it seems.

Nothing good for you or I. But make no mistake, people are profiting.

 

[Mael]

When little jimmy is your brother and goes off and dies in a war started for made up reasons, perhaps you'll understand then that even on the other end of a drone bomb there is likely innocent people dying.

It's not a perfect world.
When your alternative to sending people to die and be scarred by war is sending drones to blow up people on the other side of the Earth, which one is better?
If you have the choice between a bag of stones and some rotten leftovers for dinner, as unappealing as the rotten leftovers are it's still better than a bag of stones.
It's so far from perfect it's not even in the same state but it's still better.
baby steps.

 

[Azih]

How did that work out for you guys?

Cuban relations normalized and a significant thaw in relations between the US and Iran. The latter breakthrough is jeopardized by Clinton's language.

Seriously the US getting away from being Saudi's pet attack dog is the best possible thing for not only America but the world.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Oh it's funny alright. It's funny how the far left bought into bs Obama attacks on Hillary as if he was really going to be the messaih the far left thought he was going to be. How did that work out for you guys?

And now you are doing the same thing with Bernie. Eating up his far left agenda and promises. Give me a break. Looking back, we should've elected Hilary who had the experience working with these nutjob republicans not the one term senator who spent two years in office funding the Iraq war then left senate to campaign the next two years hitting Hillary from the left.

I did use to listen to democracy now on radio everyday but i have become disillusioned with far left ideologies. They are nice on paper but the reality is much much harsher and as shitty as Israel and Saudi Arabia are, we need them. If I were president, I would cut ties with SA tomorrow until they give women rights and stop the public beheadings. I would cut ties with Israel until they stop building settlements. And cut their aid if they invade Gaza again. But I know the world isnt that simple.

There is a reason Obama went from a far left candidate to a pragmatic president. There is no room for a far left president in world Bush left us.

Obama a "far left candidate"? In what universe? He was Absolutely never seen as one by anybody with their head on their shoulders. His personality, charisma, campaign skills (both oratorical skills and ground game/organization) that pushed him over the top against Hillary, along with some policy differences like Iraq as differentiators.

Criticizing her past votes and judgement, as well as who she idolizes, is not "eating up a far left agenda". Casting criticisms away as "Fox News talking points" is not productive discussion and does nothing in the way of offering a counter argument. I've seen that line used on here several times - it's also worth pointing out, as if it weren't obvious enough, that it's not always true that the statements in question are republican talking points nor that it necessarily makes them untrue.

The pragmatism angle should not be allowed to stand on its own as something only she owns, nor should the experience and judgement portion. It's ridiculous to cast aside all criticisms Of her judgement as being right wing talking points, or not pragmatic, and call opposing points of view "far left promises".

 

[Mael]

Cuban relations normalized and a significant thaw in relations between the US and Iran. The latter breakthrough is jeopardized by Clinton's language.

Yes the thawing of the relationship between the US and Iran is jeopardized by Clinton and not the GOP's constant interference and the very real possibility of a R president throwing everything out of the window as well as the constant rhetoric from GOP officials.

Seriously the US getting away from being Saudi's pet attack dog is the best possible thing for not only America but the world.

Fuck YES!

 

[SlimySnake]

There is no misunderstanding "Sometimes you have to suck it up and know that if you do the progressive thing and stay out of it, hundreds of thousands of people will die."

The assurance you have in people dying does nothing to address that fact that millions of people did die due to OUR involvement in iraq. So to sit here and say hundreds of thousands of people will die if we do the progressive way vs millions that have died doing the pragmatic way is utter bullshit.

Killing millions to save thousands is cowardly.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Everyone here agrees that the Iraq war was a mistake. We are talking about the Libyan war. Are you saying millions of libyans have died since we took out Gaddaffi?

This is so fucking bizarre.

 

[Madness]

But she is gonna be a completely different person when she's president. /s

That's my biggest issue as well. People somehow think because she's adopted a lot of what Sanders has been saying for months that she will follow through once she's elected. Watch as she clinches the nomination and then moves back to the center. I also don't get why people think the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency will translate to Hillary. Going to miss President Obama when he's gone. We're going to get most likely these decade long polticians who are in the pockets of all the lobbyists and corporations and foreign donors.

 

[Azih]

Yes the thawing of the relationship between the US and Iran is jeopardized by Clinton and not the GOP's constant interference and the very real possibility of a R president throwing everything out of the window as well as the constant rhetoric from GOP officials.

I'm not comparing Clinton to Republicans. I'm talking about her on her own merits/drawbacks. And foreign policy is a major drawback based on both her past actions and her current rhetoric.

 

[Mael]

I'm not comparing Clinton to Republicans. I'm talking about her on her own merits/drawbacks. And foreign policy is a major drawback based on both her past actions and her current rhetoric.

I don't get how you could vote for a candidate based on their foreign policies, they're pretty much all equally horribly stupid for different reasons.

 

[RedSparc]

Where the fuck did you see anyone in this thread giving any justification for the Iraqi invasion?

Nah, we are just pragmatic. Sometimes you have to suck it up and know that if you do the progressive thing and stay out of it, hundreds of thousands of people will die. None of us here want to police the world. We aren't republicans. Obama and Hillary dont want to police the world, but they are pragmatic leaders who know that sometimes it's necessary to get your hands dirty to do the right thing.

if you want people who stick to their principles no matter what, go vote for Ron Paul and Tea Party Republicans.

Pretty clearly states that the pragmatic way is the way of war. In the scope of American forign policy since 1960, war has caused more death then it has saved, from our involvement and everything occurring now is largly a product of American intervention by one means or another.

If blanket justification for American intervention is that hundreds of thousands of people will die then ignoring the fact that millions of people die when we do intervene with military force is a tragedy.

I'll let yall get back to your warmongering, sorry for having sympathy for those you are advocating killing with drones.

 

[Mael]

Pretty clearly states that the pragmatic way is the way of war. In the scope of American forign policy since 1960, war has caused more death then it has saved, from our involvement and everything occurring now is largly a product of American intervention by one means or another.

If blanket justification for American intervention is that hundreds of thousands of people will die then ignoring the fact that millions of people die when we do intervene with military force is a tragedy.

I'll let yall get back to your warmongering, sorry for having sympathy for those you are advocating killing with drones.

WTF was pragmatic about the Iraqi Invasion?
What are you talking about? Why are you confusing everything?

 

[SlimySnake]

Cuban relations normalized and a significant thaw in relations between the US and Iran. The latter breakthrough is jeopardized by Clinton's language.

Seriously the US getting away from being Saudi's pet attack dog is the best possible thing for not only America but the world.

you are literally the first person i've heard talking about Clinton jeopardizing the iran deal. i will have to look into this.

Also, I like Obama and the Cuban talks are great, but his legislative achievements are nowhere close to the stuff he promised as a candidate, especially in his second term. We can blame the republicans for saying no, but he had a filibuster proof majority in the congress for at least the first year until Ted Kennedy died and then was just one senate vote short of a filibuster until the 2010 midterms. He struggled to get even democrats to work with him.

I can promise you that the same is going to happen with bernie if he ever becomes president.

Pretty clearly states that the pragmatic way is the way of war. In the scope of American forign policy since 1960, war has caused more death then it has saved, from our involvement and everything occurring now is largly a product of American intervention by one means or another.

If blanket justification for American intervention is that hundreds of thousands of people will die then ignoring the fact that millions of people die when we do intervene with military force is a tragedy.

I'll let yall get back to your warmongering, sorry for having sympathy for those you are advocating killing with drones.

Sorry, but this is nuts. Go read all my replies in the thread instead of cherry picking one reply and making absurd assumptions off of it.

 

[Azih]

I don't get how you could vote for a candidate based on their foreign policies, they're pretty much all equally horribly stupid for different reasons.

Well let's just say that Sanders is the best of the current lot by far. He's managed to pull Clinton into at least paying lip service to better policies on economic and domestic policy issues but she's maintained her warlike language even in the democratic primary and because of that I worry that she wouldn't build on Obama's successes if she is the next POTUS.

Obama's campaigns always empahsized that he'd reach out to anyone and everyone and to his credit he did. Clinton's campaign so far has been a lot of "IRAN IS EVIL!"

Edit: Slimy did you read this link I posted? It was on the last page:
http://www.thenation.com/article/in...on-on-iran-policy-sanders-is-right-heres-why/

 

[FreedomFighter]

All these articles conveniently ignore how the country had already erupted into civil war before any intervention and that Gaddafi was about to massacre the civilian population of Benghazi.

Wasn't really a civil war, the Qatari-funded extremist among with local elements were being put down decisively by the Libyan armed forces, and only then did the regime change operation masquerading as a no-fly-zone come into effect.

The whole no fly zone was predicated on something that didn't even happen. It's was like Minority Report.

Her emails reveal what the true motives were, and it had nothing to do with "the civilian population of Benghazi".

<snip>

This truncated post is well worth reading and should probably be in the OP/the first post.

In what way is she "hawkish" on Russia? She hardly wants to drop a nuke on Moscow FFS!

The entire neo-con Beltway establishment is extremely hawkish when it comes to Russia for blatantly obvious reasons. They're a very vocal bunch. Gotta give them that.

I think at the end of the day, when you step into Washington, you're basically told what the mandate is going to be for your time there and to step into line. Nothing good comes out of US foreign policy it seems.

Nothing good for you or I. But make no mistake, people are profiting.

There are huge ideological dreams at play in Washington. Sometimes I think this drives US foreign policy more than the corporatist/economic interests.

When you have to have a sinking fund specifically for military expenditures that doesn't count in the actual Federal budget, you're a nation with a very sad addiction.

Seriously the US getting away from being Saudi's pet attack dog is the best possible thing for not only America but the world.

Saudi... and ISRAEL. The latter seriously tried to manipulate Washington into attacking Iran for years preceding the nuclear deal. Gareth Porter chronicles this in great detail.

 

[Abinash117]

Hey you're going to dismiss any source I post. That's fine but the basic point remains.

An incredibly large proportion of Syrians support Assad. Are you honestly denying that?

None of that refutes any of what I've said. The FSA was the only rebel group that had any hope of replacing Assad and keeping control of the nation and even they would never have won quickly no matter what the US did

The idea that if the US/West had just done something differently the rebels would have quickly ousted Assad is ridiculous. There was no such something because of the massive amount of support for Assad from the civilian population and the armed forces of the country. Any rebel success was always going to lead to a long terrible civil war and foreign jihadis streaming in.



Oh please. The Gulf states are throwing all of their influence into fighting 'Shias' in Syria. Just like the Turks are throwing as much as they can into fighting Kurds in Syria.

So here's my three points.

• An incredibly large proportion of Syrians support Assad
• Because of this there was nothing the West could have done that would have led to a quick ouster of Assad
• Hillary's foreign policy doesn't seem to acknowledge any of this. She's a hawk with a capital H

http://www.thenation.com/article/in...on-on-iran-policy-sanders-is-right-heres-why/

Yes I would think a that large proposition or a majority of more than 50% support Assad in some form or at least the government. I actually so polling on it before and not from the source you got. A large part of the population is in government controlled areas after they left for whatever reason, but also a lot of the residents left the country around 4 million, and most of the territory is not in government control. Any polling I doubt will be accurate, but I would guess a significant portion supports Assad. Also if you knew the site was not reliable then it does not help your point at all. You don't use a unreliable website to prove a point that makes no damn sense and is contradicting yourself.


Your two points was that

Are you kidding me? The rebels were a splinter of the Syrian army with the rest of the Army fully supporting Assad. A majority of Syrians were SUPPORTING Assad until at least Jan 2012.

. The rebels mean ALL the rebels and ALL the rebels aren't FSA. There's Southern Front US/Jordon backed group, various CIA-backed groups that are given TOW missiles, Islamic Front, etc.

The idea was that if the US backed the opposition that it wanted then government would have been overthrown because the rebels nearly took important areas, were in Damascus( still are), the military was in chaos with the desertions, and at the time many people were saying that the government are in the process of failing during the time. That doesn't mean it would have worked.

Oh please. The Gulf states are throwing all of their influence into fighting 'Shias' in Syria. Just like the Turks are throwing as much as they can into fighting Kurds in Syria.

Lol what a throw away statement. You accused that the gulf-backed jihadists was streaming in Syria implying they was doing that en-mass from the beginning. They weren't. They aren't putting all their influence to fighting the Shias, that's not even the damn point. The jihadist were coming to Syria for a long time the Gulf nation most likely supported them when they did arrive at Syria, but all that stuff about the Saudis influencing all the Muslims to fight in Syria is crazy.

I can to can use a throwaway statement, but with evidence. http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-backed-iraqi-militias-are-pouring-into-syria-2015-10
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...hiite-jihad-in-syria-and-its-regional-effects
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/12/iraq-battle-dead-valley-peace-syria


Hillary Clinton's stance on the current affairs of Syria is something that Obama followed through at least when it comes to ISIS in Syria as what she said like increasing special forces to fight ISIS which Obama had done of was in the process of doing. A no fly zone was capable before the Russians got involved it isn't now unless the Russians are part of it. I don't know everything about Hillary's full foreign policy outlook, but I can say that she is right when it comes to Iran. If Hillary was right when she said that she helped get the sanctions on Iran, then she is the one of the people that helped get rid of Iran's nuclear program and was one of the people to get the deal done. You don't get stuff like that without some type of harsh actions, and the sanctions was one of the ways to do it and it worked.

Bernie Sander's idea IS foolish and naive, or is something that is already happening. You do not be friendly to country to a nation that is furthering their interests that is against your allies and yours, and is nation that many western governments thinks support terrorism( which Bernie says anyway). The idea that the Saudis and Iranians is going to come together to fight ISIS is stupid and unrealistic.

 

[Mael]

Well let's just say that Sanders is the best of the current lot by far. He's managed to pull Clinton into at least paying lip service to better policies on economic and domestic policy issues but she's maintained her warlike language even in the democratic primary and because of that I worry that she wouldn't build on Obama's successes if she is the next POTUS.

Obama's campaigns always empahsized that he'd reach out to anyone and everyone and to his credit he did. Clinton's campaign so far has been a lot of "IRAN IS EVIL!"

I actually realize I don't know enough about sander's foreign policy, so let me a few minutes to read his stuffs and a few hours to digest it.
I'm not expecting much though.
Obama promised that the US would no longer be a lone voice in the world and do stuffs unilaterally.
He pretty much succeeded there.
He wasn't perfect but considering the presidents the US had since Reagan, I can't say he's the worst by quite a margin.
I don't think we can expect better than that.

 

[BearFlexington]

When you have to have a sinking fund specifically for military expenditures that doesn't count in the actual Federal budget, you're a nation with a very sad addiction.

Good article. Ultra depressing.

 

[Square2015]

She's basically Bush 2.0, she's just continuing the Plan for the New American Century agenda that Bush began: to topple some ten or eleven ME countries over the next few decades. What is Libya number 6?

We must stop doing this!


Edit: 7 not 10/11

 

[FreedomFighter]

She's basically Bush 2.0, she's just continuing the Plan for the New American Century agenda that Bush began: to topple some ten or eleven ME countries over the next few decades. What is Libya number 6?

We must stop doing this!

She'd be Bush 3.0 though... 2.0 was Obama.

 

[Pedrito]

She's basically Bush 2.0, she's just continuing the Plan for the New American Century agenda that Bush began: to topple some ten or eleven ME countries over the next few decades. What is Libya number 6?

We must stop doing this!

So what are the 6?

Iraq
Libya (mostly done by Europe)
Syria is 0.5 as it's a work in progress

What else?
Who's next on the list to get to 10-11?

 

[FreedomFighter]

So what are the 6?

Iraq
Libya (mostly done by Europe)
Syria is 0.5 as it's a work in progress

What else?
Who's next on the list to get to 10-11?

Sudan, Lebanon, Somalia, and Iran.

There were seven.

 

[Azih]

but I would guess a significant portion supports Assad.

Thank you. We agree on that. That's point one. The consequence of that point is that there was no way rebel success wouldn't lead to a terrible and long civil war struggle.

Also if you knew the site was not reliable then it does not help your point at all. You don't use a unreliable website to prove a point that makes no damn sense and is contradicting yourself.

The Guardian is reliable. Sott is not. But Sott showcases at least some sense of how Syrians who support Assad think. No need to disparage me on this. You agree with me on what I'm trying to prove (Large number of Syrians backing Assad)

. The rebels mean ALL the rebels and ALL the rebels aren't FSA. There's Southern Front US/Jordon backed group, various CIA-backed groups that are given TOW missiles, Islamic Front, etc.

The idea was that if the US backed the opposition that it wanted then government would have been overthrown because the rebels nearly took important areas, were in Damascus( still are), the military was in chaos with the desertions, and at the time many people were saying that the government are in the process of failing during the time. That doesn't mean it would have worked.

I focused on the FSA because they were the only ones of the rebels that I could see that had any legitimate claim to replacing Assad because they at least have some military authority in the nation. A war isn't over until you replace one authority with another and nobody in the Southern Front or the Islamic Front have authority.

Lol what a throw away statement. You accused that the gulf-backed jihadists was streaming in Syria implying they was doing that en-mass from the beginning. They weren't. They aren't putting all their influence to fighting the Shias, that's not even the damn point. The jihadist were coming to Syria for a long time the Gulf nation most likely supported them when they did arrive at Syria, but all that stuff about the Saudis influencing all the Muslims to fight in Syria is crazy.

I have no idea what you're saying. Saudi and friends have been vocal about being anti Assad from the very start of the protests. That's a fact. Saudi and friends have also funded a lot of armed forces in Syria opposed to Assad and that includes both Syrian and foreign forces. That's a fact too. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Hillary Clinton's stance on the current affairs of Syria is something that Obama followed through at least when it comes to ISIS in Syria as what she said like increasing special forces to fight ISIS which Obama had done of was in the process of doing. A no fly zone was capable before the Russians got involved it isn't now unless the Russians are part of it.

How the hell is a no fly zone going to help fight ISIS? ISIS doesn't have freaking planes. The only faction a no fly zone hurts is the Assad regime, not ISIS, and that is obvious to everyone.

I don't know everything about Hillary's full foreign policy outlook, but I can say that she is right when it comes to Iran.

Right about what? Iran being evil? Are you in favour of rolling back the nuclear deal and putting sanctions back on Iran?

Bernie Sander's idea IS foolish and naive, or is something that is already happening. You do not be friendly to country to a nation that is furthering their interests that is against your allies and yours, and is nation that many western governments thinks support terrorism( which Bernie says anyway). The idea that the Saudis and Iranians is going to come together to fight ISIS is stupid and unrealistic.

Iranians already fight ISIS because for ISIS types Shias are as valid a target as Westerners. Saudi, wanting to keep their own native Shia population suppressed use their influence to oppose anything Iran does. They would rather fight Iran than fight ISIS just as Turkey would rather fight Kurds than fight ISIS. Welcome to the Middle East.

Edit: Mael, I'd love another Obama because it was obvious he hated the blowhard that is Nehtanyahu and has done more to shift American ME policy away from Saudi than any other President. I just don't see that Clinton continuing that unfortuantely.

 

[Your Entertainer]

you are literally the first person i've heard talking about Clinton jeopardizing the iran deal. i will have to look into this.

Also, I like Obama and the Cuban talks are great, but his legislative achievements are nowhere close to the stuff he promised as a candidate, especially in his second term. We can blame the republicans for saying no, but he had a filibuster proof majority in the congress for at least the first year until Ted Kennedy died and then was just one senate vote short of a filibuster until the 2010 midterms. He struggled to get even democrats to work with him.

I can promise you that the same is going to happen with bernie if he ever becomes president.

If there's one thing I will fault Obama for, especially back in his first term, it was his apparent "spinelessness" - I was definitely disgruntled with it.I also generally like Hillary - but regardless of the promises, can we take that to mean Clinton would have necessarily done better when it was all said and done?

I simply disagree with the "pragmatism" stand-point. If you ask for more, you may not wind up with everything you asked for, but you're starting from a better position than if you attempted to be "pragmatic"; especially if you are dealing with a party who made it explicit from day one that their only goal was to say no unconditionally, and you're dealing with important issues such as wages and healthcare. I also think you're underestimating the power of having an inspirational leader who can motivate the base and shift that national conversation leftwards, back to reality. The right has succeeded in moving the national conversation to the right, to the point where center left and even sometimes center right policies are viewed as the left wing "alternative" to their far right demands. That has to change - I have much more confidence in Bernie to do so.

 

[Pedrito]

Sudan, Lebanon, Somalia, and Iran.

There were seven.

Oh, 6 was Libya's position on the list? I thought he/she meant Libya's was the sixth regime toppled.

They really dropped the ball with Sudan. They could have used the Darfur genocide as an excuse for invasion. Must be a low priority coup.

 

[FreedomFighter]

Oh, 6 was Libya's position on the list? I thought he/she meant Libya's was the sixth regime toppled.

They really dropped the ball with Sudan. They could have used the Darfur genocide as an excuse for invasion. Must be a low priority coup.

Oh, ok, I misunderstood. I don't know that there was a particular order, just that Wesley Clark named the seven nations in a particular order. For example, there were rumblings of US toying with the idea of spreading the Iraq war 2003 into Iran, but that was around the time they began to realize that they had their hands full with Iraq, and thus abandoned the idea. I think these are all concurrent efforts and not necessarily sequential. Another example of concurrent efforts was the Lebanese attempt coming in 2006.

The Sudanese attempt was a failure because Africa rallied around Omar al-Bashir and gave the ICC its ass to kiss (for once). So it Balkanized instead, which I'm not opposed to because South Sudan needed to be its own nation.

 

[params7]

that's assuming a lot. there's a reason why i didn't include "build a wall and make a trade war with China" -- THOSE aren't related.

its wishful thinking to think that imposing a ban on Muslims doesnt effect millions of people. Its also an outright ban on refugees from half of the world. Trump is also on a warpath when it comes to ISIS, and who knows what that really means when you "bomb the hell out of them" and that's assuming he doesnt fly off the handle elsewhere.

openly accepting torture also has an effect on perception around the world. blaming Clinton 100% for Libya is a tortured look at the situation and accepts a lot of the Republican fairy tale.

The average civilian living in the Middle East doesn't care what Presidential candidates say in the U.S. They care if the U.S. will come invade their nation or not, or rupture their government leading to severe changes in their social climate some of which include heightened tensions with other sects and fear of random suicide bombing - as Iraqis witnessed post U.S. invasion. Iraq witnessed near zero suicide bombing before 2003's U.S. invasion. You can say U.S. fucked up Iraq for decades and it wouldn't be enough.

As for the immigration ban, I'm not for it but on the grand scheme of things, a tiny percentage from the Mid East immigrates to the U.S. Plus Europe/Canada are very welcoming.

I don't want to blame Clinton 100% for Libya. She didn't start the mess there, but she certainly became the face of U.S. involvement and went full hawk, then laughed about it all. That combined with her Iraq vote, blessing from war hawk lobbies and talking about fighting more governments in Syria doesn't do her image very good.

 

[Abinash117]

Thank you. We agree on that. That's point one. The consequence of that point is that there was no way rebel success wouldn't lead to a terrible and long civil war struggle.

The Guardian is reliable. Sott is not. But Sott showcases at least some sense of how Syrians who support Assad think. No need to disparage me on this. You agree with me on what I'm trying to prove (Large number of Syrians backing Assad)

I focused on the FSA because they were the only ones of the rebels that I could see that had any legitimate claim to replacing Assad because they at least have some military authority in the nation. A war isn't over until you replace one authority with another and nobody in the Southern Front or the Islamic Front have authority.

I have no idea what you're saying. Saudi and friends have been vocal about being anti Assad from the very start of the protests. That's a fact. Saudi and friends have also funded a lot of armed forces in Syria opposed to Assad and that includes both Syrian and foreign forces. That's a fact too. What exactly are you disagreeing with?


How the hell is a no fly zone going to help fight ISIS? ISIS doesn't have freaking planes. The only faction a no fly zone hurts is the Assad regime, not ISIS, and that is obvious to everyone.

Right about what? Iran being evil? Are you in favour of rolling back the nuclear deal and putting sanctions back on Iran?


Iranians already fight ISIS because for ISIS types Shias are as valid a target as Westerners. Saudi, wanting to keep their own native Shia population suppressed use their influence to oppose anything Iran does. They would rather fight Iran than fight ISIS just as Turkey would rather fight Kurds than fight ISIS. Welcome to the Middle East.

Edit: Mael, I'd love another Obama because it was obvious he hated the blowhard that is Nehtanyahu and has done more to shift American ME policy away from Saudi than any other President. I just don't see that Clinton continuing that unfortuantely.

That's bullshit you did not focus on FSA you said rebels. If you focusing on the FSA you would have said FSA. I don't think you even knew what those groups even are. The ones I mentioned are large part supported by foreign backers, but in large part are Syrians regardless they of ideology so I don't how they don't have authority whatever you meant. The world FSA lost it's meaning a long time ago it is an umbrella term now, and a large part of those groups work together so the SF is as much as FSA as FSA, besides many of those groups from earlier in the war do not exist anymore. Some left the country, some went back to the government, some went to other groups.

When you said about SA throwing all their support to fight the shias, I said that isn't the point. After I proved that SA has barely anything to do with jihadists coming to Syria from the first few years of the war. See you moving to different points now, I neversaid that SA don't support armed groups-no shit, but at first you accused the Gulf are all sending in jihadists and then you said that they are getting all their influence to fight the Shias in Syria. All that is mostly unture and is more complicated then you make it seem.
This

Saudi and friends have been vocal about being anti Assad from the very start of the protests. That's a fact. Saudi and friends have also funded a lot of armed forces in Syria opposed to Assad and that includes both Syrian and foreign forces. That's a fact too.

has nothing to do with Gulf-backed jihadists flowing in Syria when evidence showed that most foreign fighters are not from the Gulf.

Again you are not understanding the context the point of the no fly zone was to prevent the SAA from using it's airforce because they were accused of indiscriminate bombings, it had nothing to do with ISIS and those talks of a no fly zone was around 2012-14.

Dont put words in my mouth. Hillary basically thinks Iran can't be an ally, because many people think Iran is against their interests some of which as nothing to do with ISIS. Hillary is right since Iran as no allies themselves in the west or in the ME, Russia maybe the only one. Hillary if what she said was right, she helped get the deal because the sanctions was put on place on Iran to force Iran to give up it's nuclear capabilities. She also stated that she supported the deal no where does it say she doesn't. Even after the deal the Obama administration does not think Iran as an ally or friendly.

Iranians already fight ISIS because for ISIS types Shias are as valid a target as Westerners. Saudi, wanting to keep their own native Shia population suppressed use their influence to oppose anything Iran does. They would rather fight Iran than fight ISIS just as Turkey would rather fight Kurds than fight ISIS. Welcome to the Middle East.

So you basically proved why the SA and Iran won't side with eachother which was something that Bernie wanted.

 

[Azih]

I really think a lot of your confusion comes from thinking 'Gulf backed jihadists' means 'from the Gulf'. It doesn't. It means jihadists supported by elements from the Gulf. And that's just where these roaming Chechen, Afghan etc Sunni fighters get their resources from.

And if you're not satisfied by why I focused on the FSA then fine. It doesn't change any of my points.

Edit: The point being that there is nothing the West could have done to help rebels oust Assad quickly given how much support Assad had and has from Syrian civilians and armed forces. Any rebel success would have always led to a long drawn out civil war and an influx of foreign jihadists.

 

[kame-sennin]

Nah, we are just pragmatic. Sometimes you have to suck it up and know that if you do the progressive thing and stay out of it, hundreds of thousands of people will die. None of us here want to police the world. We aren't republicans. Obama and Hillary dont want to police the world, but they are pragmatic leaders who know that sometimes it's necessary to get your hands dirty to do the right thing.

The United States has never intervened militarily for purely humanitarian reasons at any point in its 240 year history.

The purpose of military intervention, for any state, is to advance or protect national financial interests. The U.S. is no different.

 

[Azih]

The United States has never intervened militarily for purely humanitarian reasons at any point in its 240 year history.

The purpose of military intervention, for any state, is to advance or protect national financial interests. The U.S. is no different.

Bill Clinton intervening in the former Yugoslavia saved a lot of Bosnians for no economic gain.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Look you are preaching to the choir here. We are all liberals here. No one here is arguing that the Iraq War or the other Wars started by Republican Presidents was a good thing. Nor was the covert aid to dictators by Democrat Presidents. What we are saying is that blaming Hilary for the Iraq war and now Libya is disingenuous, and painting her as a hawk for trying to prevent massacres is even worse. Hilary voted for the Iraq war along with Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and John Edwards. Basically along with the democrat leadership in the Senate. And why wouldn't they? When someone as decorated and respected as Collin Powell goes to bat for the President, you have to set aside politics and work with the President. It turned out to be faulty intelligence, but they had the right reasons.

I also think it's disingenuous for you to blame the suicide bombings in Pakistan and various other arab countries on u.s foreign policies. It absolves Pakistani and Saudi terrorists of masterminding and executing 9/11 and puts the blame squarely on the shoulder of U.S because they once trained Afghan rebels + Osama's crew a couple of decades ago. Why not blame Pakistan for supporting terrorist organizations for half a century? Why not blame the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq for not getting along like normal human beings? I grew up in Pakistan and while there were secretarian clashes every few years, my best friend was Shia and we all lived together peacefully. Also, let's not pretend that ISIS wasn't welcomed with open arms in some Iraqi cities and that cowardly Iraqi soldiers didnt leave their post letting ISIS take over Iraq with absolutely no fightback. Let's not put all the blame on the white man and take some responsibility.

Lastly, the reason why I dont buy that Hilary is war mongering hawk like Bush is because she's still married to Bill. Bill did not intervene in Rwanda, and watched in horror as hundreds of thousands of civilians were massacred. And when he did intervene in Somalia and Bosnia, it was at a very small scale and did not prevent massacres or deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. Now Hilary is her own woman, but I refuse to believe that she will go off starting wars like Bush just because she advocated for 'helping' the rebels oust a dictator the ENTIRE world including European and Arabic countries agreed had to go. There were no U.S boots on the ground, no U.S casualties and we got rid of Gaddafi for a billion compared to the trillion it cost to oust Saddam. I'd say she did a much better job than Bush on that front.

Now did it work out for the best? Of course not. Is Hillary the only one to blame? Of course not. We did the right thing with the right intentions, and tried our best not to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq war, and we still failed because the Libyans did not come together to form a union. In fact, there wouldn't a Benghazi tragedy if Chris Stevens wasn't there working to eliminate ISIS.

The best example I can give of U.S non-intervention is Syria. Obama did not want to get involved and allowed Assad to brutally massacre his own people including using Chemical Weapons. Hundreds of thousands of people. It also created ISIS. That's the cost of inaction. That's what happens when you dont intervene. I am with you that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. But helping Libyan civilians was the humane thing to do and the entire world was for it. Not just Hilary the Hawk.

1. The fact that Biden, Kerry, Reid and others voted for the Iraq war didn't make it less wrong. It is always telling, when people are trying to do damage control by instigating "look- they did it too!". If you're on the wrong side of history, you are on the wrong side of history.
The UN weapon inspectors led by Hans Blix, didn't find any tangible proof of WMDs. The protests against the Iraq war were unprecedented in both their scale and size. I remember being in several of the big ones in my city, and there was no doubt, that the entire excuse for the war was complete bullshit. The link between AlQaeda and Iraq was thin, it was known that most of the were Saudi Nationals, and like with North Korea now- It was widely believed by experts in the UN that the link Powell presented was insufficient. Bernie Sanders nailed it his speech for the vote; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdFw1btbkLM

And why wouldn't he? When was the last time you saw a major world power intervening in a country going through a civil war? This is old hat for US foreign policy, who has used its own selfish interest to undermine many governments in Central America, Asia and the Middle East to further it's own interest. The idea that the US was doing this for the good of the Iraqis was laughable.
As Bernie points out- Any invasion would grow spite and contempt and a new wave of sectarian conflict due to the tribal and ethnic fueled vendettas that plague the region.
It always ends bad. It has never ended good.


2. It does not absolve Pakistani or Saudi Arabia, but it is understood by anyone who knows foreign policy what they are about. And then when you as a Democratic World Power, the self-imposed leader of the free world, then sell arms and weapons technology, you're playing two games. You're instigating violence on the back end, fully knowing what they are going to do.
It is reasonable to expect the United States to be better than those countries. That is the rhetoric the United States uses, but it creates this violence it then conveniently seems to allow itself to extinguish. It's Military Industrial Complex de facto of keeping the fumes running on the arms race. When you look at how much money the US spends on defense it really is not that strange.
Saudi Arabia is involved in a religious war on Shia societies. When the US and UK sells its arms to SA knowing this, their hands are dirty. You cannot give a gun to a fanatic and then not take responsibility. But modern US foreign policy does this- While trying to bake a narrative that they are good guys trying to create democracy.It's a farce and a lie.
There is nothing new-wave or pacifistic about this world view. There simply isn't historical evidence to back up that it is ever a good outcome for a powerful nation to insert itself militarily- As in direct military conflicts, to create a long term prosperity.


3. Rwandas genocide is a very different beast from civil wars arised from Arab Spring. In a Civil War it is wise to stay out, of a direct military intervention as it always ends up being much much worse. For one, if it's not your own country you do not posess all the factual information as to know who to back, and furthermore you do not know who ends up acting what way once they are in power.
Historically, the outcomes that has led countries to peace and stability have almost always been the result of a country being allow to settle it's own score. I cannot think of a situation where a world power has intervened in a civil war and that has ended well.
Again- Stopping a genocide is different from a civil war. If you watch some of Noam Chomskys speeches you can see how he always advocates for the least loss of life. You might intervene in a civil war and topple a dictator- But if that dictator made sure there was a form of peace and control, that is a better outcome that a country going up in flames, and in total anarchy. The amount of innocent casualties is different.
You can look and European prosperity as to how civil wars, settled by their own countries throughout the last 100 years has resulted in civil wars and uprisings that eventually led to a form of peace and reformation.




4. Regarding Syria, you say that it is the result of inaction, but that to me is believing in a fantasy that action would have made it better. It is known that many of the rebel groups fighting ISIS and Assard have their own deeply concerning beliefs. Many of them who are in favor of oppressive Sharia style governments. As an outsider it is almost impossible to gauge who the good guys are.
The reality of it is that it is a melting pot of many different factions fighting within for control, and trying to push the outcome to in a certain way can be dangerous. We've seen it from the toppling of Latin American and African Dictators time and time again.
There are other ways of assisting and protecting human life besides direct military intervention- Humanitarian. But there isn't a lot of money in humanitarian conflict compared to making arms.
It's not true that Assad or lack of military intervention created ISIS.
What created ISIS was the Iraq war, and it was the continued relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia.

Using chemical weapons is not new or novel or a means for intervention for the US (in the past). Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds in the late 80s, and that didn't result in any form of response. Only when Saddam invaded Kuwait, an important Oil Ally, did the tune change.
If any of the narrative here is supposed to be true. That America has the best interests for the citizens of Iraq, then that explanation is claustrophobic and nonsensical.

"Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off."

This is a quote from Dick Cheney from 1994- Defending the first George Bushs choice not to topple Saddam.
The fact is that Cheney, Hillary and everyone else, knew exactly what they where doing. As much as Sanders fans would like to paint him as a Messiah, it simply was the logical conclusion of almost every other Post-WW2 military/CIA Covert invasion of the United States.


This is on Hillary, because she is a warhawk. And she is very, very aggressive. Like a modern Margret Thatcher she runs on being strong and decisive, fulling patriotic and nationalistic tendencies of trying to have a moral high ground. But it does not feel genuine. She regrets Iraq. She can sum up the war- The biggest war crime of the 21th century, as a mistake. But that is the reality of the current political landscape. No politician seems able to call it what it truly is. A disgrace that cost more than 1,5 million people their lives, over bullshit and incompetence.
Polls showed that the democrats was on the war lust post 9/11 not thinking of consequences of bomb first, questions later mentality, or if the appropriate response was justified, or if it really just played up into the hands of terrorists, whose agenda is to create chaos and destabilization. Iraq didn't have anywhere near the religious fanaticism and radical dangerous islam as it would later get during the war. Terrorists knew this. It is predictable guerrilla tactics and has been seen since Vietnam.
In the mid 90s, the US imposed extreme sanctions against Iraq. They were devastating, and more than 500,000 children died of starvation as a result. Several UN inspectors quit their positions citing that it was mass murder.
The fact is that this continued assault on the populace was bound to create extreme radical groups. Hillary knew this.
Hillary cannot plead that she thinks it is a regret, and then engage in the same style of intervention with the same scorn for wanting to pick up the pieces. The intervention in Syria has made things, much, much worse.
It wasn't the United States (or the international community) right to bomb. There should have been a humanitarian aid, and only a military intervention in a direct genocide- As in attack on a non-fighting populace. And what went on Syria since 2011 was a revolution. Vastly different.

 

[kame-sennin]

Bill Clinton intervening in the former Yugoslavia saved a lot of Bosnians for no economic gain.

Not true. Milosevic was a major impediment to the expansion of the west's neoliberal economic agenda. Note; Slovinia and Croatia became EU/NATO members shortly after the war.