Messages

Asked and answered.

No you didn't you just compared her to someone else. Is she an interventionist or not?

You weren't asked about Albright, Rice or Powell. Is Clinton an interventionist or not?

No idea, just curious as to why you're afraid to answer. So is she an interventionist or not?

You said she is a war mongerer responsible for Iraq, ISIS, Libya no Syria that and she is the biggest threat to world peace since WW II.

After all the above, this logical fallacy is the equivalent of now asking me if she has a sneaky smoke now and then.

So is she an interventionist or not?

"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."

"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."

Wow!

Worse than Cromwell.

Stripping out the opinion of a journalist you are left with the above. 'Should consider sending more troops' and 'partial no-fly zone'. Well damn me but war-mongerers aren't what they used to be.

So is she an interventionist or not?

This is another of your logical fallacies.

First, the black or white question. Usually loaded, obviously without context or mitigating circumstances.

Then comes the false cause. 'Interventionist' will obviously have to equal evil war-mongerer and thus prove that she was responsible for all of the woes in Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Libya.

Is she an interventionist or not?

"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."

"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."

Wow!

Worse than Cromwell.

Stripping out the opinion of a journalist you are left with the above. 'Should consider sending more troops' and 'partial no-fly zone'. Well damn me but war-mongerers aren't what they used to be.

So is she an interventionist or not?

"Is that the best you can come up with?"

Not at all, just spotted it on Twitter over lunch. As I said, the PLO are meeting with the Israeli's and one of the most prominent Hamas leaders yesterday seems to be endorsing Pat Sheenan's visit. However I do apologise and bow to your greater insight to all things Palestinian.

[How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk]

It's an easy question. Either she is or she isn't?

However it seems I'm not the only person with this view of Clinton. In a largely sympathetic NYT piece from earlier in the year there's a couple of stark quotes which for non-Yanks point to the nature of the woman even if the author doesn't intend it

How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0

"For all their bluster about bombing the Islamic State into oblivion, neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has."

"Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race."

"Just as Clinton benefited from her alliance with the military commanders, she gave them political cover."

"Thus might the gen­eral election present voters with an unfamiliar choice: a Democratic hawk versus a Republican reluctant warrior."

"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."

"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."

Is Clinton an interventionist?

Seems not everyone is singing off Dixies hymn-sheet though

Legend.His goalscoring record in the green jersey will never be equalled and few lads will ever play for giant clubs like Spurs,Celtic and Inter

Did he ever play for Inter? I seem to remember the big criticism of him a few years back was that he was an underachiever primarily because he was jumping from club to club during his best days presumably for the money. Did that ever change?

What has Hillary got to do with it?

This classic from Ulick: "IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII."

I can understand that Trump has his supporters, but must they imitate his lunacy?

Hillary will be about as big a threat to World Peace as her husband was. Which makes her equally the least dangerous likely President since before the Cold War.

So Ulick, what is your real problem with her?

Your defense of her is admirable. My problem with with her is obvious, she is a dangerous interventionist. That is obvious. It wasn't my intention to derail the discussion hence I preceded the comment with "IMO" and was then asked why. You then lowered the tone with your "garbage" opinion. If you can't be civil Muppet then there is no point engaging, I better things to be doing than wasting time with trolls.

I didn't mention Gaddifi or Saddam, I said she is responsible for the current situation in Libya by facilitating the arming of Libyan jihadis and then facilitating the transfer of arms to northern Iraq to the people who are now ISIS. If you was to misread what I saying that's your problem but it's pretty much a part of the public record now. I'm not going to spend my evening digging out "proof" for you on something that is irrelevant to the original discussion but here's the first Google search return on Clinton and Libyan rebels: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels

As I said, she's an interventionist meddler directly responsible for a lot of the chaos going on in the world today. Oh I also think it's cute that you think there's even a fag papers worth of difference between US Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy.

Your article doesn't say what you think it does.    You should read it.

As for Republicans and Democrats, I see one as right wing and the other as ultra-right wing. But as for a 'fag papers worth of difference', there is at least one very significant difference. The last two Republican Presidents invaded countries for oil, while the last two Democrat Presidents didn't. Over 100,000 dead is the difference, which you might call 'even a fag papers worth'.

I'm sure the half million dead of Syria, Iraq and Libya are consoling themselves that they weren't invaded by the yanks.

I didn't mention Gaddifi or Saddam, I said she is responsible for the current situation in Libya by facilitating the arming of Libyan jihadis and then facilitating the transfer of arms to northern Iraq to the people who are now ISIS. If you was to misread what I saying that's your problem but it's pretty much a part of the public record now. I'm not going to spend my evening digging out "proof" for you on something that is irrelevant to the original discussion but here's the first Google search return on Clinton and Libyan rebels: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels

As I said, she's an interventionist meddler directly responsible for a lot of the chaos going on in the world today. Oh I also think it's cute that you think there's even a fag papers worth of difference between US Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy.

I didn't say she was responsible for ISIS but oversaw the period when they were rearmed and rose to prominence largely with the help of weapons from US surrogates in Libya. Yanukovych's integrity in the debate is irrelevant, fact is he was democratically elected and subsequently overthrown by US sponsors. That Clinton approves of such tactics supports my assertion that she is an interventionist who sees nothing wrong with meddling in other countries and to hell with the consequences. As I said she is going the main destabilising factor in international geopolitics over the next decade, if she gets in.