• 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 distances herself from Obama's foreign policy

Perotista said:
I came to that conclusion by looking at the electoral college and comparing trustworthy state for both parties. I did not take ideology or the popular vote potential into consideration. Hillary would start off with Democratic trustworthy states worth 256 electoral votes, just 14 shy of the 270 needed to win. Jeb Bush would start off with 220 counting Florida. Most other Republican potential nominees start off at 191. Now if Bush were to pick either Portman and or Kasich from Ohio, he could narrow that margin down to 256-238. Then North Carolina is another must win for him with its 15 electoral votes as if the Democrat/Hillary won NC, that would put her at 271. Bush probably can win NC. Then it becomes a crap shoot over Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virginia.

Oh, a Kasich/Bush ticket would accomplish the same as a Bush/Kasich ticket.
Click to expand...
Can we get instead a real statesman/woman with a clear view of geopolitics (and the guts to take action)?
America desperately needs a good president, and the world needs a good US president.
I'm not very optimistic that either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party will provide us with one. The independents and small parties won't either, or if they do, that person wouldn't win.
Like I said, we're doomed.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Can we get instead a real statesman/woman with a clear view of geopolitics (and the guts to take action)?
America desperately needs a good president, and the world needs a good US president.
I'm not very optimistic that either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party will provide us with one. The independents and small parties won't either, or if they do, that person wouldn't win.
Like I said, we're doomed.
Click to expand...

Yep, lets slit our wrists and burn the house down.;)
 
Rainman05 said:
What?
No.

What?

Benghazi is in Libya. Syria is a whole different country. To get from Libya to Syria you have to through 3 countries. It's a whole different thing.
Click to expand...

Is that your final answer?
 
Montecresto said:
I'm satisfied republicans would have supported it had it ever got as far as a vote. I'm glad that it didn't however. And I still believe that it was impossible to control the arms being supplied to the syrian rebels from Benghazi through Turkey, with the Turks largely responsible for vetting, and not fully trustworthy as to their loyalties, particularly with Erdogan's actions of late. This having led to IS benefitting and being strengthened in the process.
Click to expand...

The multitude of players in the region, not many with clear intent or allegiances, is a primary reason why I believe it's bad policy for the US to get deeply involved in a unilateral way.
 
American said:
U.S. Efforts to Arm Jihadis in Syria: The Scandal Behind the Benghazi Undercover CIA Facility | Global Research

Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador

CNN confirms WND reporting on gun-running in Benghazi
Click to expand...

Yeah. I knew you were going to pus those up.

I will remind you that those are all speculations and if you start to think of them, you'll see the absurdity of it.
Let's start with this.
U.S. Efforts to Arm Jihadis in Syria: The Scandal Behind the Benghazi Undercover CIA Facility | Global Research
A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations
Click to expand...
Perfectly plausible.

But why would some guy from Libya, from across the god damn Mediterranean, be in charge of this process? The US has an embassy in Turkey. Why not from there?
If the consulate in Benghazi was anything, it was an information center for what was going in Libya, with the pretty unstable there. Not in Syria.

It's beyond absurdity.

Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador
Really?
Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
Click to expand...
Oh boy. Everything is tied into the 9/11 attack. jesus christ.

The rest is not memorable at all and stinks of so much speculation. I mean honestly, this is looking for ties and making connections that aren't there.
Let's get 1 thing straight.

Maybe, maybe, the libyan extremists who have sunk the country in civil war are supporters of ISIS, which they aren't, why would they give away their weapons to ISIS? They need those weapons to depose the current regime and take power and make Libya into an islamic state.
Irrational.

CNN confirms WND reporting on gun-running in Benghazi
Ok, so wnd. It linked to this source:
Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs
CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.
Click to expand...
In the aftermath of the attack, Wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with CIA operatives and contractors who wanted to talk.
Click to expand...

etc


Ofc there are CIA operatives in Libya. There was a coup earlier that year. The CIA had to restore connections, make "friends" in the new government OR with the potential "new governments" that could rise if a new warlord would gain power in case of a new civil war. That's what the CIA does. That's what it was doing there.

The Benghazi incident wasn't motivated, influenced or anyway connected to anything outside of Libya. Nothing to do with ISIS or Turkey or Syria.

So no, sorry. there are no facts in your source. There's borderline stupid speculation that can be dismantled by simple logic.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Can we get instead a real statesman/woman with a clear view of geopolitics (and the guts to take action)?
America desperately needs a good president, and the world needs a good US president.
I'm not very optimistic that either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party will provide us with one. The independents and small parties won't either, or if they do, that person wouldn't win.
Like I said, we're doomed.
Click to expand...

I am like you, I do not feel either of the major parties are interested in a statesman. Both are only interested in someone who can push their political agenda through. But that is what political parties do and are for. If we get a statesman, one who knows what is going on and has the guts to do something about it, that is always in addition to adhering to the parties ideology and agenda.

Yep, we're pretty much doomed.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The multitude of players in the region, not many with clear intent or allegiances, is a primary reason why I believe it's bad policy for the US to get deeply involved in a unilateral way.
Click to expand...

:agree: Too many shadowy areas here to take anyone at face value! Although the players themselves probably know who is what, we the people don't, and that leads to nasty surprises - like the MB taking over in Egypt, then being ousted by the people when their agenda became apparent. So who's next? When you don't have liberty, all that's left is tyranny or chaos - and we're sure seeing a lot of that lately! :thumbdown:

Ugly rainy day here today, and getting cold! Feels like October! Ugh!

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:
 
Rainman05 said:
Yeah. I knew you were going to pus those up.

I will remind you that those are all speculations and if you start to think of them, you'll see the absurdity of it.
Let's start with this.
U.S. Efforts to Arm Jihadis in Syria: The Scandal Behind the Benghazi Undercover CIA Facility | Global Research

Perfectly plausible.

But why would some guy from Libya, from across the god damn Mediterranean, be in charge of this process? The US has an embassy in Turkey. Why not from there?
If the consulate in Benghazi was anything, it was an information center for what was going in Libya, with the pretty unstable there. Not in Syria.

It's beyond absurdity.

Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador
Really?

Oh boy. Everything is tied into the 9/11 attack. jesus christ.

The rest is not memorable at all and stinks of so much speculation. I mean honestly, this is looking for ties and making connections that aren't there.
Let's get 1 thing straight.

Maybe, maybe, the libyan extremists who have sunk the country in civil war are supporters of ISIS, which they aren't, why would they give away their weapons to ISIS? They need those weapons to depose the current regime and take power and make Libya into an islamic state.
Irrational.

CNN confirms WND reporting on gun-running in Benghazi
Ok, so wnd. It linked to this source:
Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs



etc


Ofc there are CIA operatives in Libya. There was a coup earlier that year. The CIA had to restore connections, make "friends" in the new government OR with the potential "new governments" that could rise if a new warlord would gain power in case of a new civil war. That's what the CIA does. That's what it was doing there.

The Benghazi incident wasn't motivated, influenced or anyway connected to anything outside of Libya. Nothing to do with ISIS or Turkey or Syria.

So no, sorry. there are no facts in your source. There's borderline stupid speculation that can be dismantled by simple logic.
Click to expand...
The stupidest part was that there was no reason to be there in the first place, even the British had left. They were warned.
 
Obama is going to be an albatross around Clinton's neck in 2016. Statements like these will get more and more stark. She can run, but she won't be able to hide. Her husband was 100% correct about him in 2008.
 
Rainman05 said:
So stupid. The bulk of the syrian rebels are ISIS. So arming them more than they have already been supplied with would just result in a stronger ISIS today.
Click to expand...

eggzactly! Here she goes again. The Little Miss "I'm gonna break the glass ceiling for women by acting more war-hawkish than the men" bit she played back in 2008. The very reason I couldn't get behind her.
 
jmotivator said:
It adds fuel to the rumor that Obama and OFA will throw their weight behind Elizabeth Warren in 2016.
Click to expand...

She's not running unfortunately. HOWEVER... Bernie Sanders is considering go join the Democratic Party (as he is an independent now) to run it the Dem primary against Hillary. *fingers crossed
 
Perotista said:
As for the Syrian Rebels, the weapons we gave where in the hands of the Turks to distribute. We really didn’t have that much say in whom they ended up with. We had to trust the Turks. I am sure some if not most ended up with organizations within the rebels that are not our friends.

As far as Hillary stating her view point as being a disgrace, she has that right. She is no longer in government and who knows, the disagreement over arming the Syrian Rebels may be one of the main reasons she resigned. She has to worry about making herself more popular with the American people if she is to run successfully for president in 2016. Distancing oneself from an unpopular president and some of his policies is nothing new. Landrieu, Hagan, Begich, Pryor, all have done so this year while running for re-election in the senate. Hillary just joins a long list that could be getting longer.

The presidents non-interventionist policies is exactly what most Americans wanted. They wanted out of Iraq, they want us out of Afghanistan, they didn’t want us to bomb in Syria. But as you say, the emergence of ISIS has shown that without someone to replace our steadying influence, the bad guys can run wild. We’ll see how the airstrikes work out, the president has authorized a bunch more and has given the military the leeway to conduct those airstrikes when and where they see fit. This in my opinion is a step in the right direction.

I think in protecting the Kurds, a loyal U.S. ally is a must. I still have mixed feelings about the Maliki government. He is way too cozy with the Iranians and I am sure the Iranians would not let him fall. Assad also has provided a few airstrikes to help Maliki out, the same Assad we are bent on taking out of power. That in my opinion is a mistake, Assad is the only person able to bring stability to Syria and he is a foe of ISIS.

Back to Hillary, I don’t blame her. She needs to let the public know what she would do different. If she is to win in 2016 and if the president continues to only receive a 40% approval rating, she will need to do more distancing than just this from him.
Click to expand...

Per Maliki...


All we have to do is pray he doesn't do a coup... being that he is also the ministry of defense, ministry of the interior and so and and so on. He has many dangerous ties that could develop a coup.
 
Montecresto said:
You mean to say that Saddam feared Iran more than the US.
Click to expand...

I would say so. He was our boy for the longest time and we turned on him. I don't think he saw that coming. When he invaded Kuwait in 1990 he asked our permission and got it. He was pissed that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Then we went after him. From that point on he wasn't our boy any more. But prior to all that, we used the hell out of him to go after Iran with our blessing and support.

U.S. Gave Green Light for Iraq to Invade Kuwait

On July 25, 1990, eight days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a quiet, largely unreported meeting took place between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie at the Presidential Palace in Baghdad, which has since been destroyed by the war.

Saddam Hussein:

"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Saddam's view, includes Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?"

(Pause, then Ambassador Glaspie speaks carefully)

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."​
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
She's not running unfortunately. HOWEVER... Bernie Sanders is considering go join the Democratic Party (as he is an independent now) to run it the Dem primary against Hillary. *fingers crossed
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put much stock in what Warren says today. The hats start getting thrown in the ring in December.
 
Montecresto said:
Again, you'd have him be the belligerent to save face?
Click to expand...

While at the same time backing Boehner's effort to sue him for acting too unilaterally. Go figure.
 
Perotista said:
I really expected Afghanistan to come apart before Iraq. Like a lot of other people, I never seen ISIS coming. In Afghanistan what most Afghans wanted was to be ruled by leaders/elders of their own tribe in whatever little portion of Afghanistan they controlled. Not by some other member of another tribe in far off Kabul. In a lot of the Afghan's eyes, we are no better than the Taliban. The Taliban wanted to ruled all 18 tribes by a member of their tribe, the U.S. enforced Democracy upon the Afghans and even though they have a vote, it is still viewed a being forced to live under another tribes ruler.
Click to expand...

It is a very natural preference for people want to be tribal. Breaking that up with a gun won't break that desire in people.
 
poweRob said:
Per Maliki...


All we have to do is pray he doesn't do a coup... being that he is also the ministry of defense, ministry of the interior and so and and so on. He has many dangerous ties that could develop a coup.
Click to expand...

In a way this sort of reminds me of South Vietnam after the assassination of Diem where you had a series of generals taking charge of the country and fighting among themselves instead of fighting the communist. There is no good solution here.
 
Perotista said:
In a way this sort of reminds me of South Vietnam after the assassination of Diem where you had a series of generals taking charge of the country and fighting among themselves instead of fighting the communist. There is no good solution here.
Click to expand...

It makes me think of John Adam's loss to Thomas Jefferson where he barely lost and the country was so young no one knew if he would get out of the way gracefully or basically run a coup on the fledgling democracy.
 
poweRob said:
I would say so. He was our boy for the longest time and we turned on him. I don't think he saw that coming. When he invaded Kuwait in 1990 he asked our permission and got it. He was pissed that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Then we went after him. From that point on he wasn't our boy any more. But prior to all that, we used the hell out of him to go after Iran with our blessing and support.

U.S. Gave Green Light for Iraq to Invade Kuwait

On July 25, 1990, eight days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a quiet, largely unreported meeting took place between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie at the Presidential Palace in Baghdad, which has since been destroyed by the war.

Saddam Hussein:

"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Saddam's view, includes Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?"

(Pause, then Ambassador Glaspie speaks carefully)

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."​
Click to expand...

I agree with all that! Although, when the Texas cowboy, jr. bush became president, I'm surprised that he wouldn't have taken him serious.
 
poweRob said:
I would say so. He was our boy for the longest time and we turned on him. I don't think he saw that coming. When he invaded Kuwait in 1990 he asked our permission and got it. He was pissed that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Then we went after him. From that point on he wasn't our boy any more. But prior to all that, we used the hell out of him to go after Iran with our blessing and support.

U.S. Gave Green Light for Iraq to Invade Kuwait

On July 25, 1990, eight days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a quiet, largely unreported meeting took place between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie at the Presidential Palace in Baghdad, which has since been destroyed by the war...

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."​
Click to expand...

If President Bush's and Brent Scowcroft's A World Transformed is correct, there's a big problem with the above account concerning April Glaspie. What is stated above refers to the U.S. leaving it to the parties to settle their disputes but it misses the context. She indicated that there would be no U.S.-imposed solution or U.S. recommendation. Bush wrote:

Her statement "as you know, we don't take a stand on territorial disputes" (standard State Department language that we do not take positions on the merits of a boundary dispute, but expect it to be settled peacefully) has been grossly misconstrued as implying we would look the other way.

Source: George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998, p.311.
 
poweRob said:
It is a very natural preference for people want to be tribal. Breaking that up with a gun won't break that desire in people.
Click to expand...

No it won't. For at least a thousand years each of the 18 tribes of Afghanistan pretty much ruled themselves with shifting alliances. They would form alliances with other tribes to face whatever danger or threat that was present and then go back to independent tribal rule. In a way, the Afghan tribes are a lot like the our native American Indian tribes were. Fiercely independent, but would unite for a battle or war against a common enemy. But they never stayed united. Each tribe had the desire to be ruled by their own, not some other tribe.
 
poweRob said:
It makes me think of John Adam's loss to Thomas Jefferson where he barely lost and the country was so young no one knew if he would get out of the way gracefully or basically run a coup on the fledgling democracy.
Click to expand...

I do not think Adams was the type who would tear apart what he worked so hard to help mold. Then there was Washington who set the example, Washington wouldn't have allowed Adams to get away with it either and being a Virginian had nothing to do with which side he would have taken.
 
Perotista said:
No it won't. For at least a thousand years each of the 18 tribes of Afghanistan pretty much ruled themselves with shifting alliances. They would form alliances with other tribes to face whatever danger or threat that was present and then go back to independent tribal rule. In a way, the Afghan tribes are a lot like the our native American Indian tribes were. Fiercely independent, but would unite for a battle or war against a common enemy. But they never stayed united. Each tribe had the desire to be ruled by their own, not some other tribe.
Click to expand...

Or Scottish clans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom