• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton calls for U.S. to 'intensify and broaden' efforts to fight ISIS

ReverendHellh0und

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
[h=1]Hillary Clinton calls for U.S. to 'intensify and broaden' efforts to fight ISIS[/h]
(CNN)Hillary Clinton is calling for more allied planes, more airstrikes and a "broader target set" -- though no large-scale mobilization of U.S. ground troops -- to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

She urged Congress to approve a new authorization of the use of military force against ISIS, saying that doing so would signal "that the U.S. is committed to this fight. The time for delay is over. We should get this done."

Hillary Clinton speech: U.S. should 'intensify' ISIS fight - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...



war.JPG


Do you agree with Hillary? Is this our fight? should we be sending our people and hardware over there?? Will she someday when politically convienent call this a "mistake" too?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
View attachment 67193104


Do you agree with Hillary? Is this our fight? should we be sending our people and hardware over there?? Will she someday when politically convienent call this a "mistake" too? [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The mistake is what Jeb Bush and other GOP candidates are calling for. He sounds just like his brother and an example of how stupid never learns.
CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Wednesday called for "overwhelming force" to be used against the Islamic State terror group, including the deployment of ground troops.

"The United States should not delay in leading a global coalition to take out ISIS with overwhelming force," Bush said in a speech at The Citadel,
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/18/jeb-bush-to-outline-national-security-plan-wednesday/
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
View attachment 67193104


Do you agree with Hillary? Is this our fight? should we be sending our people and hardware over there?? Will she someday when politically convienent call this a "mistake" too? [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

She will probably win the election if she keeps this stance up.
 
ISIS has to go, one way of the other. But I think pretty much the whole world is on board with that. Lets let some other country spend their money and die doing it as much as possible.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
View attachment 67193104


Do you agree with Hillary? Is this our fight? should we be sending our people and hardware over there?? Will she someday when politically convienent call this a "mistake" too? [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I am very disappointed in Obama for not having gotten the neighborhood and UN to stop Assad, when he started shooting down demonstrators in the streets, use real torture on anyone with alternative positions and gassed civilians in the towns. ISIS grew out of the rebellion this caused, but the real problem remains the tyrant.

Having said this, the situation cannot be pacified as long as ISIL remains in place.

The other problem that Obama's dilettante foreign policy is responsible for is that France and Russia are now acting together and against US interests. Putin has again played an American President against the wall and taken the initiative away from us.
 
joG said:
The other problem that Obama's dilettante foreign policy is responsible for is that France and Russia are now acting together and against US interests. Putin has again played an American President against the wall and taken the initiative away from us.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Every time Obama "leads from behind" Putin gives the US another kick in the behind.
 
As yes, those reclusive anti-war democrats. Like cicadas, they only appear every 8 years or so when the President has a "R".
This is the problem you get when people with no military experience want to be commander in chief. From 1948 until 2008 at least one of the major Presidential candidates had served in the military. Not the case in 2012 and apparently not in 2016.

I don't like aerial bombing as the only approach. In the first place, as Clausewitz stated, war is an extension of politics by other means. You need boots on the ground to have political control. If you are not willing to put boots on the ground you shouldn't be there. Libya was a disaster. All we did was bomb and had no political control.
The term "weapons of mass destruction" came from the aerial bombing of Guernica made famous by Picasso. Bombing is a weapon of mass destruction that indiscriminately kills civilians and combatants alike. I would hope that the US doesn't get involved in warfare unless we are willing to put lives on the line and try to reduce civilian casualties. I hate the idea that "no Americans died" is held up as a worthy goal when we killed 1,000s of innocent civilians.

As to Hillary. I don't trust her. Too many bad decisions from her. But I would support more US involvement in Syria if under a more reliable and honest President.
 
Eric7216 said:
As yes, those reclusive anti-war democrats. Like cicadas, they only appear every 8 years or so when the President has a "R".
This is the problem you get when people with no military experience want to be commander in chief. From 1948 until 2008 at least one of the major Presidential candidates had served in the military. Not the case in 2012 and apparently not in 2016.

I don't like aerial bombing as the only approach. In the first place, as Clausewitz stated, war is an extension of politics by other means. You need boots on the ground to have political control. If you are not willing to put boots on the ground you shouldn't be there. Libya was a disaster. All we did was bomb and had no political control.
The term "weapons of mass destruction" came from the aerial bombing of Guernica made famous by Picasso. Bombing is a weapon of mass destruction that indiscriminately kills civilians and combatants alike. I would hope that the US doesn't get involved in warfare unless we are willing to put lives on the line and try to reduce civilian casualties. I hate the idea that "no Americans died" is held up as a worthy goal when we killed 1,000s of innocent civilians.

As to Hillary. I don't trust her. Too many bad decisions from her. But I would support more US involvement in Syria if under a more reliable and honest President.
Click to expand...

I am with you on Hillary, but I will say this. She probably has the most combat/military experience when looking at all the candidates. When she was SoS she did visit many of the combat zones. Sniper fire aside, she did go to the front.
 
mak2 said:
ISIS has to go, one way of the other. But I think pretty much the whole world is on board with that. Lets let some other country spend their money and die doing it as much as possible.
Click to expand...

Right. Because we spent, and I'll not repeat the numbers, they're known, attacking a different incarnation of Islamic extremists, and not only were they never in their last throws, Bush is long gone and AQ, is still there, strengthened and expanded.
 
Eric7216 said:
As yes, those reclusive anti-war democrats. Like cicadas, they only appear every 8 years or so when the President has a "R".
This is the problem you get when people with no military experience want to be commander in chief. From 1948 until 2008 at least one of the major Presidential candidates had served in the military. Not the case in 2012 and apparently not in 2016.

I don't like aerial bombing as the only approach. In the first place, as Clausewitz stated, war is an extension of politics by other means. You need boots on the ground to have political control. If you are not willing to put boots on the ground you shouldn't be there. Libya was a disaster. All we did was bomb and had no political control.
The term "weapons of mass destruction" came from the aerial bombing of Guernica made famous by Picasso. Bombing is a weapon of mass destruction that indiscriminately kills civilians and combatants alike. I would hope that the US doesn't get involved in warfare unless we are willing to put lives on the line and try to reduce civilian casualties. I hate the idea that "no Americans died" is held up as a worthy goal when we killed 1,000s of innocent civilians.

As to Hillary. I don't trust her. Too many bad decisions from her. But I would support more US involvement in Syria if under a more reliable and honest President.
Click to expand...

The supposed qualification of CIC to have had some military experience is only important if you're a nation given to much military adventurism and war mongering. If an incoming president turned over a new FP leaf, his or her military experience would be rather moot.
 
Simpleχity;1065271201 said:
Indeed. Every time Obama "leads from behind" Putin gives the US another kick in the behind.
Click to expand...

So Putin's even behind Obama in the back. :lamo
 
joG said:
I am very disappointed in Obama for not having gotten the neighborhood and UN to stop Assad, when he started shooting down demonstrators in the streets, use real torture on anyone with alternative positions and gassed civilians in the towns. ISIS grew out of the rebellion this caused, but the real problem remains the tyrant.

Having said this, the situation cannot be pacified as long as ISIL remains in place.

The other problem that Obama's dilettante foreign policy is responsible for is that France and Russia are now acting together and against US interests. Putin has again played an American President against the wall and taken the initiative away from us.
Click to expand...

If you're disappointed in Obama for not getting the UN to authorize action in Syria, then very simply acknowledge the reason why he failed at that.
 
Blue_State said:
I am with you on Hillary, but I will say this. She probably has the most combat/military experience when looking at all the candidates. When she was SoS she did visit many of the combat zones. Sniper fire aside, she did go to the front.
Click to expand...



She has no military experience other than lying about being sniped at. "visiting" combat zones is not "military experience".
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
so this thread about hillary, you found it an opportunity to call jeb stupid?

but hillary, no comment?
Click to expand...

Yeah, gist of Hilary's plan to defeat ISIS is "Step 1) Defeat ISIS"

As a reporter rightly pointed out, Hilary's plans are like Trump's plans. His plan to make America great again "Step 1) Make America Great again!"

Neither should be a serious candidate for President.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
She has no military experience other than lying about being sniped at. "visiting" combat zones is not "military experience".
Click to expand...

Well, she also has the lie about walking into a USMC recruiting office once.
 
Is it our fight? Yes. Should it be open to the public press? Nah. We should be smoking out and then smoking their members. Enough of the drone strikes. Why? Because it is too easy to kill civilians. Do it the old fashioned way. No prisoners. International cooperation to just slaughter the bastards. How can someone piss of Russia, China, and the United States and still exist?
 
Montecresto said:
If you're disappointed in Obama for not getting the UN to authorize action in Syria, then very simply acknowledge the reason why he failed at that.
Click to expand...

I am not so much disappointed in that as in the fact that he has not gotten the UN to set itself up to become active in organizing security. After the previous Administration left office, he had a strong case for the UN becoming more active in implementing R2P and many in the UN wanted it. He let this slip through his fingers.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
so this thread about hillary, you found it an opportunity to call jeb stupid?

but hillary, no comment?
Click to expand...

Hillary will not get our troops into an extended ground war in Syria. When Jeb talks of "overwhelming force" it shows that he 's learned nothing from his brothers mistakes. All that overwhelming force does is drive the enemy into hiding and a protracted insurgency.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
If you're disappointed in Obama for not getting the UN to authorize action in Syria, then very simply acknowledge the reason why he failed at that.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Could it be the Russians veto power that stopped him? You need him to spell it out for you?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
She has no military experience other than lying about being sniped at. "visiting" combat zones is not "military experience".
Click to expand...

I was saying she has more than the other candidates because she was the SoS and she was going to forward positions. During those visits she was exposed to the military and therefore I would say she has military experience. No, she did not hold a rank or go to basic training. But she has seen the leadership and the structure. She has also observed and been a part of making decisions.
 
Montecresto said:
The supposed qualification of CIC to have had some military experience is only important if you're a nation given to much military adventurism and war mongering. If an incoming president turned over a new FP leaf, his or her military experience would be rather moot.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Currently we have a guy who claimed to be anti-war and received a Nobel Peace Prize and he seems more militarily adventurous than almost anyone. And he doesn't know what he is doing. I would hope that you could see that.
But I guess there is always hope and change.
 
Blue_State said:
I was saying she has more than the other candidates because she was the SoS and she was going to forward positions. During those visits she was exposed to the military and therefore I would say she has military experience. No, she did not hold a rank or go to basic training. But she has seen the leadership and the structure. She has also observed and been a part of making decisions.
Click to expand...



So she went to places with sand, and saw troops... that's not "military experience". you can also see how she bungled benghazi I am of the opinion she should be as far away from foreign policy as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom