I think it’s a bad idea, but I see her saying things like this:
“I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air, to try to provide some way to take stock of what’s happening, to try to stem the flow of refugees,” Clinton said in an interview with NBC affiliate WHDH in Boston after a campaign event nearby.
That doesn’t mean “I’m going to go in and start shooting down Russian planes and start WW3” as far as I can see. I think there would have to be international support for such a notion. It may very well be literally unenforceable if the Russians don’t sign on, and they won’t. I don’t think a war with Russia is a good idea in any way, but I don’t see it as a logical conclusion of such a statement.
Put another way, given the option of staking out a policy position that would be at odds with Russia, or flattering them like a simpleton and expecting them to be our friend, I’m very clear about which option is preferable.
Good for you, you are dubious, we should all be dubious of all accounts.
Perhaps you can dance around technicalities like when did ISIS first exist, and point to Iraq. But when did they get power? It was when they were given arms.
It doesn’t really matter now anyway. The problem exists. If it existed in a vacuum and the only considerations were whether we should cooperate with Russia on this single issue or not, I would be all for it. But it doesn’t.
There’s NATO, Eastern Europe, issues involving China and Asia, the rest of the Middle East. I’d go as far as to say that I’d prefer to cooperate with Russia in Syria. But I don’t even believe that can happen so easily. For a start, these potential “friends” are currently attempting to manipulate our election processes. Currently, the less to do with them in general the better, as far as I’m concerned. They’re not going to magically become our friends just because Trump wins. They’ll very likely respect us far less and potentially could begin pushing to test our will.
A good question, recently they have been called the establisment or globalists. I actually think the politicians that sign up to this agenda believe its the right course of action.
This election is not Republicans vs Democrats, its corporate bureaucracy vs the people.
Great to see you guys shilling for the warmongers and 1%. It’s amazing how they’ve managed to gaslight you since the mid-2000s. At least then the rhetoric was believable.
If you think that I think that Trump is the solution, then you’re completely misreading me, but then I guess you’re locked into the “blue team good, red team bad” mindset. I’m talking about systemic failure here. At best, Trump could blow the system up, but he’s not even going to do that if he gets in; he’d end up being pretty ineffective because all of the non-democratic organs of societal power would come into play (as they already are). That’s why I am supporting Hillary; she actually could blow the system up. At least under her, there is a chance of a reset (provided that there is no war with Russia).
Why is the hill that everyone has to die on in a world war the crappiest hill available? Everyone always chooses to make the game of brinkmanship over some completely pleb-tier region of the world full of useless people such as the Middle East, the Balkans, etc. Who the Hell actually wants Syria? Where I do actually part ways with many on the right is that I wish that we would hurry up and create super-efficient solar panels or such things so that we could leave that entire crappy region to disappear up its own backside. Syria doesn’t even have that much oil for God’s sake, so why is everyone so concerned about it?! Screw this if all of these wankers on both sides start WW3 over that giant open latrine.
There was a planned gas pipe line that was to go through Syria, with two possible routes, one favorable to Russia and one more favorable to the West. At least that is some peoples thoughts, another is just aligning with Russia was enough to push for regime change. Ukraine is another, there was a lot of push and pull regarding who Ukraine would align with, going right back to the beginning there were offers being made from both Russia and EU to lend money and Ukraine had aligned itself with Russia (much bigger offer of cash). IMO its geopolitics of the highest order.
Yep, this is just the same old story here. Nothing new under the sun. It’s all about oil, money and geopolitical influence. It’s basically Cold War 2.0. And none of the major players (U.S., Russia, Turkey, Iran) could care less about the refugees…well, except for Turkey, who’s making cold hard cash reabsorbing the refugees who are flooding Europe. Turkey is also buying discount oil from ISIS, which I guess makes them the smart one here, making money no matter which way the war goes. And in all the chaos, it’s much easier to exterminate those pesky Kurds. A half-assed coup attempt is a small price to pay. Supporting ISIS is also a nice middle finger to the U.S. for providing a safe harbor for Fethullah Gülen, who Erdogan blames the opposition movement on.
The person whose campaign has been financed by wall street and foreign fundings, who is supported by people who have all the interest in not-changing the system and keep the status-quo as it is, who was unethically favored by her own political party at the expenses of the other democrat candidate (because the other candidate clearly stated that a banking reform was a priority)…is the person who, you think, could blow up the system?
With the Clinton in charge literally nothing will change, because the people who pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into her campaign don’t want things to change.
I’m not a US citizen, so luckily I don’t have to choose betwen the two, but if I had to pick between an ultra-conservative who has been sponsored by wall street and huge financial institutions, who supported the torturing of prisoners in Guantanamo, who represents the interests of people with cash and who has control over what the press writes/says, or a racist guy with a weird hair cut, I’d easily pick the latter.
For me Lady Bill represents exactly the opposite of the kind of person I’d put in charge of a government.
Guy’s point is that four more years of the same destructive policies that have been in play for the last eight years (well, much longer really) is the quickest way to cause a total system reset. A little creative destruction, if you will.
Poor Grandpa Sanders never even had a chance. Unfortunately, that’s what happens to idealists in the real world. I think he’s possibly finally starting to wake up and smell the Hillary, though. In America, we call it “lifelong learning.”
I get the push and shove over Ukraine. It’s not a small, unimportant nation by any stretch of the imagination.
It seems that Syria now, regardless of who wins or is in power, is going to be a complete basket case. This pissing match over it then seems completely unfounded.
Well I’m not saying that my plan would work! It could all go horribly wrong. Dr_Milker understands what I’m saying though. With Trump, things would kind of limp along in a lukewarm fashion, just getting a little bit worse, a little bit worse. I think that there is going to be a financial crisis within the next four years. Hillary’s response to that, plus her almost certain attacks on the 1st and 2nd Amendments and other forms of social engineering might be enough to finally break things. If not, then the US will essentially become the Brazil of the north; hopefully, they would become so dysfunctional then that everyone else would be left the hell alone.
My one fear in all of this is the sabre rattling going on and that declining powers rarely decline gracefully; they usually end up causing a lot of collateral damage on the way down.
I’m wondering if we need a separate thread for Bubba Foundation suckage.
[quote]Many of the Colombian “success stories” touted on the foundation’s website – the ones specific enough for us to track down – were critical about the foundation’s effect on their lives. Labor leaders and progressive activists say foundation programs caused environmental harm, displaced indigenous people, and that it concentrated a larger share of Colombia’s oil and natural gas reserves in the hands of Giustra, who was involved in a now bankrupt oil company that worked closely with the Clinton Foundation and which used the Colombian military a 1984-style surveillance program to smash a strike by its workers.
It was a shocking record that belies the progressive principles on which the Clintons have based their political dynasty and philanthropy, embodied in the Clinton Foundation’s advertising copy: “Everyone deserves a chance to succeed.”[/quote]
There’s just no pleasing some people.
Place like Colombia (and Haiti) can’t be fixed, but they can be exploited.