The US Election 2016, Part VI

[Guard Dog]

Thank you Gromnir. Bruce there is no point in wasting time gathering links that have been posted before that you either didn't read or outright dismissed the last few times. We're not going to convince you of anything and I'm no longer inclined to try. Hell I can't even convince you she is a liar. It's like trying to prove to someone that rain is indeed wet when all they say is "no it isn't". 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

The thing with experience is that it's only really a plus if you like what they've done. In the case of Clinton I see a lot of people making the experience claim both for and against her 

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP  supporters ?

 

 

clinton has experience.  is not same as being qualified.  to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. 

 

 

Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again.

 

Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board.

 

fixed

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this 

 

You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders?

[BruceVC]

Thank you Gromnir. Bruce there is no point in wasting time gathering links that have been posted before that you either didn't read or outright dismissed the last few times. We're not going to convince you of anything and I'm no longer inclined to try. Hell I can't even convince you she is a liar. It's like trying to prove to someone that rain is indeed wet when all they say is "no it isn't". 

You conflating issues, I wont just call anyone a liar until I am comfortable with the facts 

 

How is my view of Hilary related to this  " obvious failures\blunders of US foreign policy " ?

[Guard Dog]

Fine. Here is a few:

 

• Pulling out of Iraq before the government was stable which directly led to ISIS becoming a thing.
• Telling Assad he would intervene if the Syrians used chemical weapons. Then not doing it when they did. Then doing it later but half assed. 
• Interventions in Libya, and especially Yemen. 
• Not using the CIA to support the Green Revolution in Iran.
• Bowing and groveling before foreign  bad mouthing his own country every time he left our shores.  

[kgambit]

 

 

 

 

 

The thing with experience is that it's only really a plus if you like what they've done. In the case of Clinton I see a lot of people making the experience claim both for and against her 

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP  supporters ?

 

 

clinton has experience.  is not same as being qualified.  to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. 

 

 

Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again.

 

Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board.

 

fixed

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this 

 

You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders?

 

 

Because as GD stated quite clearly, the bullet point list has been done ad infinitum and you always dismiss the  points raised out of hand.  Why should anyone bother jumping thru that hoop again with you? 

 

You know the definition of insanity Bruce?  Repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

PS:  I'm surprised GD even bothered. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by kgambit

[Guard Dog]

 

Thank you Gromnir. Bruce there is no point in wasting time gathering links that have been posted before that you either didn't read or outright dismissed the last few times. We're not going to convince you of anything and I'm no longer inclined to try. Hell I can't even convince you she is a liar. It's like trying to prove to someone that rain is indeed wet when all they say is "no it isn't". 

You conflating issues, I wont just call anyone a liar until I am comfortable with the facts 

 

How is my view of Hilary related to this  " obvious failures\blunders of US foreign policy " ?

 

It's not. Allow me to translate your first statement though. "Thank you for posting those video links I'll be sure to not watch them "

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing with experience is that it's only really a plus if you like what they've done. In the case of Clinton I see a lot of people making the experience claim both for and against her 

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP  supporters ?

 

 

clinton has experience.  is not same as being qualified.  to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. 

 

 

Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again.

 

Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board.

 

fixed

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this 

 

You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders?

 

 

PS:  I'm surprised GD even bothered. 

 

It was just off the top of my head. I'm not hunting for hyperlinks anymore. No point in that.

[quidproquo]

Don't know why anyone would jump through hoops.  Don't know why you lads are jumping through hoops.  Myself I do the links you people throw in your posts, at least some of them, so maybe the dance you all have with BruceVC is instructive nonetheless.

[Guard Dog]

Why do we argue with Bruce? Because he argues back. Being Batman would be boring as hell is it wasn't for the Joker! 

[BruceVC]

 

Fine. Here is a few:

 

• Pulling out of Iraq before the government was stable which directly led to ISIS becoming a thing.
• Telling Assad he would intervene if the Syrians used chemical weapons. Then not doing it when they did. Then doing it later but half assed. 
• Interventions in Libya, and especially Yemen. 
• Not using the CIA to support the Green Revolution in Iran.
• Bowing and groveling before foreign  bad mouthing his own country every time he left our shores.  

 

Thanks, in response 

 

• Pulling out of Iraq before the government was stable which directly led to ISIS becoming a thing.

 

Nope it really was time to pullout, the USA wasnt wanted....or so al-maliki claimed 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/04/iraq-usa-urban-troop-withdrawal

 

• Telling Assad he would intervene if the Syrians used chemical weapons. Then not doing it when they did. Then doing it later but half assed.

You of all people really think the USA should have attacked Syria with the complications of the Russian connection and the different extremist groups...I thought you always believed in non-intervention?

• Interventions in Libya, and especially Yemen

The USA did what was asked, it provided airpower to help the Libyan rebels 

• Not using the CIA to support the Green Revolution in Iran.

Iran is not a weak country as far as there control of the military and secret police  is concerned ...besides there is  now a  moderate leaders in Iran now and people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are gone 

• Bowing and groveling before foreign  bad mouthing his own country every time he left our shores.

Examples? 

•  

Edited September 10, 2016 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing with experience is that it's only really a plus if you like what they've done. In the case of Clinton I see a lot of people making the experience claim both for and against her 

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP  supporters ?

 

 

clinton has experience.  is not same as being qualified.  to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. 

 

 

Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again.

 

Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board.

 

fixed

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this 

 

You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders?

 

 

Because as GD stated quite clearly, the bullet point list has been done ad infinitum and you always dismiss the  points raised out of hand.  Why should anyone bother jumping thru that hoop again with you? 

 

You know the definition of insanity Bruce?  Repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

PS:  I'm surprised GD even bothered. 

 

You mistaking the fact I dont agree with you with the fact I am ignoring your views

 

I stand by my view that Obama has taken the USA  in the right direction on foreign policy, if you disagree then make your case 

[Guard Dog]

No of course I don't think we should have intervened in Syria or any of them. I would not trade the life of one American citizen if it would save every man, woman, and child in Syria. But the President of the United States does not threaten to do something... and then not do it. 

 

As for bad mouthing us he called us all lazy this past week. Hows that. I linked the article. Did you read it?

[BruceVC]

No of course I don't think we should have intervened in Syria or any of them. I would not trade the life of one American citizen if it would save every man, woman, and child in Syria. But the President of the United States does not threaten to do something... and then not do it. 

 

As for bad mouthing us he called us all lazy this past week. Hows that. I linked the article. Did you read it?

Here is an interesting question, in certain cases like this Syria example  why should the USA not look for a way out ?

 

Kerry didnt expect the other option but when he was questioned the Obama presidency took the non-intervention option 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-kerry-idUSBRE9880BV20130909

 

Imagine if the USA  had decided to  "keep its word " and invade that hellhole 

[quidproquo]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/04/iraq-usa-urban-troop-withdrawal

 

Don't know much about the other stuff, but this is an excellent response regarding the withdrawal.  Addressing that, my take:

 

Remember reading about the withdrawal at the time and al-Maliki's comments were part of a dance also. Kind of like the dance you all have here.  Context is an American President who had no intention of having a larger permanent presence in the country.  Easy to insist you won't allow troops to stay when your American counterpart has made it clear they don't want to anyway and will support your stance.  Different context could have and undoubtedly would have rendered a different result.  The withdrawal was not set in stone.  That it ended the way it did does not mean it was destiny or fated to do so.

 

Just to bite the coin, I watched all the videos you lot posted on the previous page.  The wall and clapping videos were comedy routines, but after the Johnson ad that GuardDog posted ended, youtube drove into one with Abraham Lincoln promoting Johnson, which was also quite funny. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by quidproquo

[Malcador]

<p>

 

Fine. Here is a few:

 

• Pulling out of Iraq before the government was stable which directly led to ISIS becoming a thing.
• Telling Assad he would intervene if the Syrians used chemical weapons. Then not doing it when they did. Then doing it later but half assed.
• Interventions in Libya, and especially Yemen.
• Not using the CIA to support the Green Revolution in Iran.
• Bowing and groveling before foreign bad mouthing his own country every time he left our shores.

Wait interventions in Libya is bad but trying to screw up Iran is a good thing?

[BruceVC]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/04/iraq-usa-urban-troop-withdrawal

 

Don't know much about the other stuff, but this is an excellent response regarding the withdrawal.  Addressing that, my take:

 

Remember reading about the withdrawal at the time and al-Maliki's comments were part of a dance also. Kind of like the dance you all have here.  Context is an American President who had no intention of having a larger permanent presence in the country.  Easy to insist you won't allow troops to stay when your American counterpart has made it clear they don't want to anyway and will support your stance.  Different context could have and undoubtedly would have rendered a different result.  The withdrawal was not set in stone.  That it ended the way it did does not mean it was destiny or fated to do so.

 

Just to bite the coin, I watched all the videos you lot posted on the previous page.  The wall and clapping videos were comedy routines, but after the Johnson ad that GuardDog posted ended, youtube drove into one with Abraham Lincoln promoting Johnson, which was also quite funny. 

I was intimately involved in the Iraq invasion, I admit I naively thought the Iraqs after living under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam would welcome the benefits of a Democracy....it was a lesson I will never forget 

 

Yes the USA made a mistake but they did try to fix Iraq but it wasnt obtainable, so al-maliki wanted the USA to leave and remember this 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27198274/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/pact-sets-limits-iraqi-prosecution-troops/#.V9RS9fl94b0

[Meshugger]

 

I was intimately involved in the Iraq invasion

 

 

??

 

Did you invest in the first private security firms handed no-bid government contracts, such as AEGIS?

[quidproquo]

My point would be that the players have an impact on the game.  What people demand and what they get depends on what they want and their skill at getting it.  Iraq, much more than Afganistan, was salvagable.  It didn't work out, but it could have worked out better with different players and a better coach.  No counterfactual argument here, tho.  Not saying that McCain or Romney would have necessarily done better.  Just saying that it could have been done better.  Withdrawal was a mistake that Obama wanted to make because he didn't think it was one.  Might not have worked better for another president, but it needn't necessarily have worked out the way it did.  It could have been better and it could have been worse.  Saying the US didn't have a choice makes no sense.  They didn't negotiate harder because they didn't want to.  Why blame Obama?  He's the president.  For good or ill, it falls at his feet.  If McCain had been president and things had worked out the same, or even a bit better or worse, people would be blaming him.  That's what it is to be the leader of a country.

[Guard Dog]

 

<p>

 

Fine. Here is a few:

• Pulling out of Iraq before the government was stable which directly led to ISIS becoming a thing.
• Telling Assad he would intervene if the Syrians used chemical weapons. Then not doing it when they did. Then doing it later but half assed.
• Interventions in Libya, and especially Yemen.
• Not using the CIA to support the Green Revolution in Iran.
• Bowing and groveling before foreign bad mouthing his own country every time he left our shores.

Wait interventions in Libya is bad but trying to screw up Iran is a good thing?

 

I would not have supported them with military intervention but I see now downside to sending them money and material aid as well as intelligence. As long as it was kept on the down low.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I was intimately involved in the Iraq invasion

 

 

??

 

Did you invest in the first private security firms handed no-bid government contracts, such as AEGIS?

 

Not me but I did have people I knew and some cousins who were part of the military contractors in Iraq helping the USA, after Apartheid ended they left SA

 

My interest was more from a work perspective but I was a junior then and had little interaction in projects 

 

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12061

[Malcador]

Eh, still seems like a waste of money to do that

[HoonDing]

Trump's clearly the best on foreign policy, he's bosom buddies with Putin and already endorsed by Kim Jong-un.

 

Plus doesn't bend over for the Chinese and Japanese either.

[Volourn]

"I watched someone on CNN being very critical of what Hillary said and yes she embellished the overall number but I have seen examples of groups of Trumps supporters being very offensive"

 

I'll one up you. ALL Clinton supporters are offensive. They are all racist sexist nazi wannabes.

[kgambit]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing with experience is that it's only really a plus if you like what they've done. In the case of Clinton I see a lot of people making the experience claim both for and against her 

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP  supporters ?

 

 

clinton has experience.  is not same as being qualified.  to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. 

 

 

Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again.

 

Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board.

 

fixed

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this 

 

You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders?

 

 

Because as GD stated quite clearly, the bullet point list has been done ad infinitum and you always dismiss the  points raised out of hand.  Why should anyone bother jumping thru that hoop again with you? 

 

You know the definition of insanity Bruce?  Repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

PS:  I'm surprised GD even bothered. 

 

You mistaking the fact I dont agree with you with the fact I am ignoring your views

 

I stand by my view that Obama has taken the USA  in the right direction on foreign policy, if you disagree then make your case 

 

 

Nope sorry - that's not correct.  I never expected you to agree with me and I never said you ignored my views.  What I said was that you dismissed the facts and your reply at the time indicated that you hadn't even read some (if not all) of the links.  

 

I made my case some time ago; you posted a reply, I replied to that and that was the extent of the "discussion".    If you feel the need to rehash the same ground yet one more time, please feel free to do a search of past posts to find the appropriate posts.  I am not going to waste time doing it because it isn't going to serve any useful purpose.  .       

 

FWIW any discussion of Obama's foreign policy record in this thread is irrelevant  except to the extent that one expects Hillary to follow the same course.  Most experts think she is much more of an interventionist (or "Hawk" if you prefer) than Obama.  So if you are voting for her because you expect to get Obama 2.0 you might be seriously disappointed.*     

  

 Distancing herself from President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, potential 2016 U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said in an interview published on Sunday that the U.S. decision not to intervene early in the Syrian civil war was a “failure.”… ​

 

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/2/1494896/-Remember-Hillary-differed-with-Obama-on-foreign-policy​

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/what-sort-of-foreign-policy-hawk-is-hillary-clinton

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/hillary-clinton-will-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/   

 

*Past policy stances are no guarantee of future decisions.  But since we can't predict what crises might arise, past performance / decisions should matter and might be a reasonable predictor of future behaviors, right Bruce?   Or is this another case where historical performance isn't important?     

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing with experience is that it's only really a plus if you like what they've done. In the case of Clinton I see a lot of people making the experience claim both for and against her 

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP  supporters ?

 

 

clinton has experience.  is not same as being qualified.  to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. 

 

 

Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again.

 

Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board.

 

fixed

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this 

 

You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders?

 

 

Because as GD stated quite clearly, the bullet point list has been done ad infinitum and you always dismiss the  points raised out of hand.  Why should anyone bother jumping thru that hoop again with you? 

 

You know the definition of insanity Bruce?  Repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

PS:  I'm surprised GD even bothered. 

 

You mistaking the fact I dont agree with you with the fact I am ignoring your views

 

I stand by my view that Obama has taken the USA  in the right direction on foreign policy, if you disagree then make your case 

 

 

Nope sorry - that's not correct.  I never expected you to agree with me and I never said you ignored my views.  What I said was that you dismissed the facts and your reply at the time indicated that you hadn't even read some (if not all) of the links.  

 

I made my case some time ago; you posted a reply, I replied to that and that was the extent of the "discussion".    If you feel the need to rehash the same ground yet one more time, please feel free to do a search of past posts to find the appropriate posts.  I am not going to waste time doing it because it isn't going to serve any useful purpose.  .       

 

FWIW any discussion of Obama's foreign policy record in this thread is irrelevant  except to the extent that one expects Hillary to follow the same course.  Most experts think she is much more of an interventionist (or "Hawk" if you prefer) than Obama.  So if you are voting for her because you expect to get Obama 2.0 you might be seriously disappointed.*     

  

 Distancing herself from President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, potential 2016 U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said in an interview published on Sunday that the U.S. decision not to intervene early in the Syrian civil war was a “failure.”… ​

 

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/2/1494896/-Remember-Hillary-differed-with-Obama-on-foreign-policy​

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/what-sort-of-foreign-policy-hawk-is-hillary-clinton

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/hillary-clinton-will-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/   

 

*Past policy stances are no guarantee of future decisions.  But since we can't predict what crises might arise, past performance / decisions should matter and might be a reasonable predictor of future behaviors, right Bruce?   Or is this another case where historical performance isn't important?     

 

 

Well Hilary has changed her mind about troops being sent to Iraq and Syria, this is the correct decision. And no historical performance isnt always relevant....the West should not get involved in the ME under any circumstances unless absolutely critical despite past examples 

 

http://www.thenigerianvoice.com/news/228583/us-will-not-ever-again-send-ground-troops-to-iraq-hilary.html