NoblesseOblige
Banned
Now ain't that some salt.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Salon - On Hillary's warmongering in Libya, the devasation that followed.
- Thread starter params7
- Start date
- Status
Now ain't that some salt.
I don't recall the US spending trillions in Bosnia and Kosovo, nor their activities in both countries being branded "colonialism" (Russia Today moonbats not withstanding).
In what way is she "hawkish" on Russia? She hardly wants to drop a nuke on Moscow FFS!
superdeluxe
Member
As opposed to letting Putin do WHat ever he wants, see where that has gotten us.
Any from the Middle East region? Afg, Iraq, Libya ended up far worse after the U.S. interventions. Syria is becoming a hellhole with U.S./Gulf backed Rebels vs ISIS vs Assad.
She's been letting herself go on Iran and Assad. Russia wants to protect Assad. She reps the neocon strategy of continuing warfare in Middle East with those dictators (or Monarchs) not allied up with the West.
No. Trump and Bernie are far better than Hillary. Trump specially has come out strongly against interventions against governments in Mid East - wants to join Russia's coalition in Syria and stop fighting Assad. Bernie has also called out Clinton repeatedly on her hawkish mindset.
Maybe we should travel back in time and hear Bernie's thoughts on Yugoslavia and Kosovo.
Afghanistan was the home of a certain terror organisation that perpetuated 9/11 and ruled by a fanatical, brutal regime just as insane as ISIS. There was NO way the US was going to avoid going in there. Oh, and FYI, Afghanistan has been pretty much fucked since the Russian invasion of '79 with constant war a feature of the country ever since. At the very least Afghanistan IS better place today than under Taliban (or Russian) rule.
Iraq was similarly also at war and in conflict in various guises since 1980 when it invaded Iran and later Kuwait. Saddam was a menace to the region and whether or not invading was the right thing to do today the country is still far better off than it was under that crazed despot.
And see my first post here for Libya. If you want to see what happens to countries that don't experience US intervention look to Syria where the worst humanitarian crisis since WWII is taking place. Iraq and Libya would have turned to shit anyway (Saddam and Gaddafi wouldn't have lived forever), and very likely as bad as Syria. At least by intervening in those countries they can avoid the very worst horrors that occurred in Syria.
Intervene: Bad outcome
Don't Intervene: Very bad outcome (genocide, crimes against humanity, millions fleeing to neighbouring countries)
Right, but that doesn't answer my question about Clinton being hawkish towards Russia. Especially when you consider she's endorsed the same position as Obama, that Russia must be punished for its illegal invasion of Ukraine along with threats against allies in eastern Europe.
Trump is better than Hillary? Oh FFS!
In case anyone doesn't know the Russian dictator Putin has endorsed Trump as has his propaganda arm Russia Today.
But Bernie wasn't secretary of state and didn't push towards the situations of Syria and Libya?
In terms of Yugoslavia and Kosovo - here you go, I'm not saying Sanders is some sort of ideal candidate in terms of Foreign Policy just a lot better than Clinton and the Republican candidates. He usually votes for wars where there is a wide coalition, plan what happens after the war and reason for the war. Simply removing genocidal maniacs won't resolve genocide if you don't fill the vacuum created by such an action. In most cases whether it's Iraq, Libya or Syria it appears that the first inclination of Hillary is get involved, antagonize opponents and prop up convenient genocidally inclined dictators while removing the inconvenient ones.
You do realize how the Taliban and Mujahideen came to prominence, I'd wager to say that the brief time before the Soviet-Afghan war is actually the most prosperous period of time for Afghanistan since the middle ages. I'm sure it was a lot happier time for 50% of the Afghan population as well since they didn't have religious nutcases controlling every part of their life
To say that Russian rule is worse for the majority of population compared to Taliban and Mujahideen rule is simply to close your eyes to women everywhere.
Why was in Iraq in such state, let me remind you:
"In September 1960, Qasim demanded that the Anglo American-owned Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) share 20% of the ownership and 55% of the profits with the Iraqi government. Then, in response to the IPC's rejection of this proposal, Qasim issued Public Law 80, which would have taken away 99.5% of the IPC's ownership and established an Iraqi national oil company to oversee the export of Iraqi oil. British and US officials and multinationals demanded that the Kennedy administration place pressures on the Qasim regime.[29] The Government of Iraq, under Qasim, along with five petroleum-exporting nations met at a conference held 10–14 September 1960 in Baghdad, thereby creating OPEC"
Yep that's right the usual geopolitical interests.
The history of US unilateral innervation has always been one of complicit genocide - whether the US acts covertly or overtly
Are you implying that the U.S. is not backing ISIS?
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
SMFH
WE NEED TO BRING BACK WATERBOARDING AND A LOT MORE
WE NEED TO BLOCK ALL MUSLIMS FROM COMING INTO THE COUNTRY
yeah, way better.
Pamplemousse
Member
Hillary's foreign policy is legit scary. She's such a hawk. What's she gonna do when Russia ignores her no-fly zone over Syria?
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Re: Reddit - As a lifelong atheist, the last 15 years has been a ride I wish I could get off of honestly.
I've watched Reddit darlings and anti-heroes of my own like Hitchens align with neocons and develop a rabid thirst for arab blood in hopes to kill all extremists and dictators before they have a chance to attack us, and yet now Reddit has an even deeper thirst for the blood of Clintons with the bizarre irony of Hillary being aligned with the likes of Hitchens to such a degree he'd probably be turning over in his grave if he would ever suffer the indignity of presuming that'd be possible.
Now I'm stuck trying to be pragmatic in an election year where I'm forced to pick between Plastic Hitler, Woody Guthrie, and Commander Hilldog. I really don't see this as anything but a pragmatic choice, though I have at least faith in the general intelligence of both Democrats, something which I do not have for the pool of Republicans.
Hillary to me seems to carry the poise I feel is probably beneficial for a national leader, and by being the most likely Democrat to win, my lot is simply thrown in with her. There is much about her I both adore and despise. This is not a foreign dissonance for a rational human being to carry into any election booth. Bernie I think is a fine human being and a choice I'd have no issue getting behind, but I feel his policies will not fly in the general and are likely impossible to implement practically at worst or at the mercy of Congress at best. And Trump is a used car salesman.
I've watched Reddit darlings and anti-heroes of my own like Hitchens align with neocons and develop a rabid thirst for arab blood in hopes to kill all extremists and dictators before they have a chance to attack us, and yet now Reddit has an even deeper thirst for the blood of Clintons with the bizarre irony of Hillary being aligned with the likes of Hitchens to such a degree he'd probably be turning over in his grave if he would ever suffer the indignity of presuming that'd be possible.
Now I'm stuck trying to be pragmatic in an election year where I'm forced to pick between Plastic Hitler, Woody Guthrie, and Commander Hilldog. I really don't see this as anything but a pragmatic choice, though I have at least faith in the general intelligence of both Democrats, something which I do not have for the pool of Republicans.
Hillary to me seems to carry the poise I feel is probably beneficial for a national leader, and by being the most likely Democrat to win, my lot is simply thrown in with her. There is much about her I both adore and despise. This is not a foreign dissonance for a rational human being to carry into any election booth. Bernie I think is a fine human being and a choice I'd have no issue getting behind, but I feel his policies will not fly in the general and are likely impossible to implement practically at worst or at the mercy of Congress at best. And Trump is a used car salesman.
tearsintherain
Member
Barring weird circumstances it seems pretty much a lock now that Hillary will be the next president. It is going to be sad when all the liberals who voted her in get shellshocked when they realize how much of a hawk she is when it comes to foreign policy.
Ironically Trump is more words than actual action, while no doubt he would be bad for progressives on domestic issues he would basically be an isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, whereas Hillary is definitely going to be a "America can do good... oops, we fucked that up, didn't we" mini George W Bush. She definitely won't make the same mistakes he did, but it'll be fascinating to see all the new ways to fuck up she finds.
Ironically Trump is more words than actual action, while no doubt he would be bad for progressives on domestic issues he would basically be an isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, whereas Hillary is definitely going to be a "America can do good... oops, we fucked that up, didn't we" mini George W Bush. She definitely won't make the same mistakes he did, but it'll be fascinating to see all the new ways to fuck up she finds.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Since the invasion Afghanistan has improved in most categories, including infant mortality, life expectancy, and education. The gains are probably underwhelming given the massive investment, but the country started at a very, very low base, and this is an historically poor region.
Macho Madness
Member
Actually the most terrifying thing about Trump is we have no idea what he would be like, and so far he's shown no restraint in acting out in a presidential campaign. He allows emotion to drive him, and any sign of weakness he must stop by showing strength. That does not sound like someone with the kind of demeanor I would respect to run our military as President.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
I won't lie, there's this little whisper in the back of my mind telling me Trump will get into office and just yell "SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKERS" at the inauguration, and sit on his ass doing nothing but taxing the rich for some reason for 4 years and just constantly dare Congress to impeach him
I try to chalk it up to too much caffeine late at night
I try to chalk it up to too much caffeine late at night
Well, at least she isn't likely to start a war with our allies so that's one thing she has over Trump.
This should be fun. No, the U.S. is not backing ISIS.
This should be fun. No, the U.S. is not backing ISIS.
DR2K
Banned
Right, the only combat he has experience with is either in divorce court or the Celebrity Apprentice.
Giant Panda
Member
US barely gave resources or training. Obama has been greatly criticized for causing the protracted civil war in Syria for not getting involved.
What makes you 100% certain that's not the case?
Giant Panda
Member
Trump also wants to tear up the Iran deal, and increase the military budget. BUT NO HILLARY IS THE TRUE HAWK.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
As the article says, it was a EU and Canada lead effort. This is one weird situation where Americans are taking responsibility for something they're not responsible for OR more likely, people just want to sling mud on Obama/Clinton and make it stick, which is exactly what this is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-soldier-killed-in-iraq-buried-at-arlington/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/12/millions-isis-cash-destroyed-us-airstrike-mosul-ba/
http://abcnews.go.com/International...erican-woman-kayla-muellers/story?id=36796458
Direct action, Airstrikes and legal proceedings against members. Listen if that's what support looks like to you then you didn't get hugged enough as a kid.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
my favorite part is the mud coming from other people on the left who prop up sanders in the same breath. i mean the right is partially imploding right now so someone has to do it i guess
Red Blaster
Member
uhh have you looked at her idiotic plan for a no-fly zone in syria
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/22/seymour_hershs_latest_bombshell_us_military
You only have the government's word here to believe, and honestly, what reason do they have to be transparent? The idea that the U.S. is both helping and fighting ISIS may seem far-fetched, but it would be smart to put some trust in an award-winning journalist.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
If I had a $1 for every use of the word "hawk" in this thread...
Out of curiosity, Why are so many people using that particular word? I'm learning a lot here on the topic, but At a high level, this thread reads like a Fox News day where all reporters are reading from the same talking points on both sides of any argument
Out of curiosity, Why are so many people using that particular word? I'm learning a lot here on the topic, but At a high level, this thread reads like a Fox News day where all reporters are reading from the same talking points on both sides of any argument
I really shouldn't respond to such a comment, but:
That piece by Hersch has been discredited by every major news source especially due to its heavy reliance on "unnamed sources." Why is it every time someone talks about the government being completely corrupt and waging wars for corporations they rely on "alternative" news sources? Also, who do you think makes up the government? It is not some monolithic entity of "others" carrying out one will. The government is made up of the people and are accountable by the people. What reason do they have to be transparent? Um, how about the law? How about after four soldiers died to to a security mishap in Benghazi, Libya we had dozens of Congressional investigations into the incident because the President's political opponents would love to find anything they can to show that Obama and/or Hilary dropped the ball and in the best scenario violated the law.
So, there would be this elaborate conspiracy by the government to create and fund ISIS in an attempt to create perpetual warfare and destabilize the Middle-East, for some reason. And, they hide this fact by also throwing support against every effort to combat ISIS so we cannot be blamed for the problem. OR it could just be that you're wrong and every other credible news report and our elected officials are telling the truth.
Ah, it's only Hersh, and here I thought we were going full on Infowars/RT.
For all you need to know about his credibility look to his claim that Bin Laden was "Torn apart by machine gun fire" and literally ground up by rifle bullets. Not even 50s do that, you still have a body. He's a voracious anti-western journalist who tends to fall in love with stories that fit his cognitive bias, it's ironic that he is victim to the same shortsightedness that started the 2003 invasion. Awards don't mean much to me.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Bernie supporters have taken up false Fox News claims about Hilary.
Your Entertainer
Member
Can we just stop with this ridiculous sentiment?
CrankyKong
Member
Well yeah, she's running for Emperor.
Hawk generally refers to someone who's especially pro war, aggression, military or military intervention, often disregarding long term ramifications for short sighted or misplaced gain. Hilary's actions such as the ones mentioned in the OP article, Eg her stance on Libya, Syria, the Iraq war, Putin, Yemen etc etc, have garnered her such a label and reputation.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
She is the only one with a realistic foreign policy. Everyone else is talking about how they are going to force Saudi Arabia and Qatar to solve all of the world's problems.
In the article Hersh anticipated that he would receive criticism for his reliance on an anonymous by stating that in the past, he has won awards for using an anonymous source. In the absence of concrete evidence on either side regarding what is actually going on in the Middle East, I'm not going to completely assume anything but still put some consideration into Hersh's story because of his track record.
timetokill
Banned
It's a commonly used word in politics to describe a politician who advocates aggressive use of the military. The opposite kind of politician is called a "dove."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hawk
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Can we stop with the ridiculous claims of painting Hilary as a war hawk just because she as a secretary of state carried out her president's policy in conjunction with NATO.
The guy was indiscriminately killing his own civilians. what do all of you people would do? nothing?
People in this thread calling her a warmongerer for doing the right thing show me that they dont know a thing about anything. they are idealist lefties who want an isolationist agenda not unlike Ron Paul's. It's a naive agenda. it's a cold hearted agenda.
The funny thing is that Obama himself said that if Assad used chemical weapons on his own civilians we would invade Syria. Assad used them anyway and obama did nothing. two years later ISIS is now capable of launching massive terrorists attacks through out europe. where did that policy of not taking out dictators get us?
Heh. I remember Democrats praising our approach in Libya when it happened, precisely because 1.) We didn't go it alone and 2.) We didn't go to war.
They're in the middle of a fucking civil war though. Help. Don't help. They'd likely still be in the same place they are now. Its not a nice time to live somewhere. This is one case where I don't think we actually made things worse.
They're in the middle of a fucking civil war though. Help. Don't help. They'd likely still be in the same place they are now. Its not a nice time to live somewhere. This is one case where I don't think we actually made things worse.
Unknown Soldier
Member
The Emperor of Mankind is canonically male though.
As for Hillary, her negatives dramatically outweigh her positives and the only reason anyone has to vote for her is that the alternative is Trump. This American political system is broken beyond belief.
superdeluxe
Member
That Hillary, forcing the UN to sanction a No fly zone over Libya.
Everyone glosses over the fact that France and U.K dragged you Yanks into this thing.
Unknown Soldier
Member
You are absolutely right.
- Status