Hillary won more votes for President

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

^ You bring up a few excellent points. Remember the original UN resolution of which Russia and 4 others abstained, only called for bombing and a no fly zone. so you're right. And England and France already had planes in the air. But what happened is what always happens... scope creep. It takes tremendous, icy cold discipline to stop and the security council did not have that discipline. The point you bring up which is accurate, is having a UN force or some occupying force would have been necessary to stop the country from falling into chaos. I think the belief (hope) by the western powers was that since there was no sectarian divide (Sunni Shia), it wouldn't devolve the same way. Sadly, ISIS filled that gap.

It's interesting because one of the lessons Clinton carries with her from the 90's is the success of the Balkan wars, conducted by UN forces and contrast that with the failure in Rwanda. I believe that Obama and Clinton's instincts would have been to use a force to stabilize, but the political reality and distaste made that untenable.

This shit is hard, it's complex and prone to second guessing. There is no doubt. It's particularly difficult today compared to WWII, for example, because we are so focused on the humanitarian piece of war. Winning is so much more difficult than it used to be. Think about the fire bombing campaigns of Dresden, Nuremberg, Hamburg, etc. Those are all war crimes, and were war crimes back then.

And WWII required a troop presence which still even continues to this day! That's why I keep coming back to my point on the Iraq withdrawal being such a terrible decision. There will never be a way to prove it but I will always believe a continued presence would have prevented so many of the problems we are currently seeing. The craziest part is that I believe if Hillary was elected in 2008 she never would have withdrawn the troops! She would have renegotiated the status of forces agreement and maintained the presence.

I agree with you on all points. I will say that I was against the war (Iraq, not WWII) from the very lead up. I believed Scott Ritter and everything he said about the lack of weapons. I believed that this was an extension of the PNAC policy, of which just about every member was either in the administration or connected to it from policy think tanks. I remember my handle for computers during that time was "Darth Rumsfeld" and I would literally get kicked and banned because of the jingoistic attitudes during that time.

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

^ You bring up a few excellent points. Remember the original UN resolution of which Russia and 4 others abstained, only called for bombing and a no fly zone. so you're right. And England and France already had planes in the air. But what happened is what always happens... scope creep. It takes tremendous, icy cold discipline to stop and the security council did not have that discipline. The point you bring up which is accurate, is having a UN force or some occupying force would have been necessary to stop the country from falling into chaos. I think the belief (hope) by the western powers was that since there was no sectarian divide (Sunni Shia), it wouldn't devolve the same way. Sadly, ISIS filled that gap.

It's interesting because one of the lessons Clinton carries with her from the 90's is the success of the Balkan wars, conducted by UN forces and contrast that with the failure in Rwanda. I believe that Obama and Clinton's instincts would have been to use a force to stabilize, but the political reality and distaste made that untenable.

This shit is hard, it's complex and prone to second guessing. There is no doubt. It's particularly difficult today compared to WWII, for example, because we are so focused on the humanitarian piece of war. Winning is so much more difficult than it used to be. Think about the fire bombing campaigns of Dresden, Nuremberg, Hamburg, etc. Those are all war crimes, and were war crimes back then.

And WWII required a troop presence which still even continues to this day! That's why I keep coming back to my point on the Iraq withdrawal being such a terrible decision. There will never be a way to prove it but I will always believe a continued presence would have prevented so many of the problems we are currently seeing. The craziest part is that I believe if Hillary was elected in 2008 she never would have withdrawn the troops! She would have renegotiated the status of forces agreement and maintained the presence.

I agree with you on all points. I will say that I was against the war (Iraq, not WWII) from the very lead up. I believed Scott Ritter and everything he said about the lack of weapons. I believed that this was an extension of the PNAC policy, of which just about every member was either in the administration or connected to it from policy think tanks. I remember my handle for computers during that time was "Darth Rumsfeld" and I would literally get kicked and banned because of the jingoistic attitudes during that time.

Ha. I'm glad you weren't against WWII. I'm not sure I can say that about everybody on the AMT.

Free

dignin said:

Free said:

dignin said:

She is extremely intelligent and tough as nails.

And a liar.

You asked, and then that was your response? Why did I bother....

It was the first thing that came to mind. I shouldn't have. Continue...

To Jose, and anyone else voting out of fear of Trump: he isn't going to win. He isn't. It's set up handily.

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Don't forget the guns they were running through benghazi.

Were they using the same planes they used to fly cocaine into Arkansas in the '70s and '80s?

It's amazing how you blow this off. You are clearly a non-interventionist and the war in Libya followed by the gun-running was exactly that. Nobody is claiming these actions were illegal but it certainly was a decision that did not work out in the administrations favour. What people aren't happy with is the failure to account for the policy, to discuss why it took place and where it went wrong. There should be some transparency on this and for someone who is as mad about Iraq as you appear to be it is quite surprising how you simply don't care. Libya was a war of choice that might have even had some merit and there should be a real discussion of the policy. Your inability to be consistent on the issue shows a real lean towards partisanship over any real dispute with an interventionist foreign policy.

I was against The Iraq war from before go. I was also very clear on my anti war stance for syria, Libya, invading Iran or any involvement in Yemen. You on the other hand continue to insist that the US should still have 170,000 troops in Iraq and cheered the Saudis in Yemen. On scales and magnitude of fuck ups, Libya pales in comparison and in fact of all of the US's military fuck ups, it probably barely registers a blip, except for the partisan neocon crowd, who see everything in black and white, wholly dismissing the complexities of the region and its people. Let me know when Canada has an "interventionist" foreign policy.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Don't forget the guns they were running through benghazi.

Were they using the same planes they used to fly cocaine into Arkansas in the '70s and '80s?

It's amazing how you blow this off. You are clearly a non-interventionist and the war in Libya followed by the gun-running was exactly that. Nobody is claiming these actions were illegal but it certainly was a decision that did not work out in the administrations favour. What people aren't happy with is the failure to account for the policy, to discuss why it took place and where it went wrong. There should be some transparency on this and for someone who is as mad about Iraq as you appear to be it is quite surprising how you simply don't care. Libya was a war of choice that might have even had some merit and there should be a real discussion of the policy. Your inability to be consistent on the issue shows a real lean towards partisanship over any real dispute with an interventionist foreign policy.

Let me know when Canada has an "interventionist" foreign policy.

You tell us.
You voted in someone who has one.

Halifax2TheMax

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

You know what's missing on this Hillary thread? A positive post.

I got one:
Donald Trump is worse!

Clever. It's because we spend our time to reacting to negative and misleading posts that are rooted in the right wing echo chamber.

And there lies the problem. You're too busy reacting and not pro acting. You can't talk about any of her pros, you can only talk about the opposition. Even when many of us have asked over and over and over again why you support Hillary Clinton and you can't come up with anything other than Trump.

I very clearly stated my support for Hillary and the reasons why. Yet I'm still wondering what question you were so desperate to have Hillary answer. Got a question for Hillary? I'll be sure to pass it on.

Halifax2TheMax

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Don't forget the guns they were running through benghazi.

Were they using the same planes they used to fly cocaine into Arkansas in the '70s and '80s?

It's amazing how you blow this off. You are clearly a non-interventionist and the war in Libya followed by the gun-running was exactly that. Nobody is claiming these actions were illegal but it certainly was a decision that did not work out in the administrations favour. What people aren't happy with is the failure to account for the policy, to discuss why it took place and where it went wrong. There should be some transparency on this and for someone who is as mad about Iraq as you appear to be it is quite surprising how you simply don't care. Libya was a war of choice that might have even had some merit and there should be a real discussion of the policy. Your inability to be consistent on the issue shows a real lean towards partisanship over any real dispute with an interventionist foreign policy.

Let me know when Canada has an "interventionist" foreign policy.

You tell us.
You voted in someone who has one.

How do you know who I voted for?

PJfanwillneverleave1

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Don't forget the guns they were running through benghazi.

Were they using the same planes they used to fly cocaine into Arkansas in the '70s and '80s?

It's amazing how you blow this off. You are clearly a non-interventionist and the war in Libya followed by the gun-running was exactly that. Nobody is claiming these actions were illegal but it certainly was a decision that did not work out in the administrations favour. What people aren't happy with is the failure to account for the policy, to discuss why it took place and where it went wrong. There should be some transparency on this and for someone who is as mad about Iraq as you appear to be it is quite surprising how you simply don't care. Libya was a war of choice that might have even had some merit and there should be a real discussion of the policy. Your inability to be consistent on the issue shows a real lean towards partisanship over any real dispute with an interventionist foreign policy.

Let me know when Canada has an "interventionist" foreign policy.

You tell us.
You voted in someone who has one.

How do you know who I voted for?

You speak of Canada like they don't have an interventionist policy.
My mistake, it must be I confused you with voting for the majority.

Halifax2TheMax

Free said:

josevolution said:

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

You know what's missing on this Hillary thread? A positive post.

I got one:
Donald Trump is worse!

Clever. It's because we spend our time to reacting to negative and misleading posts that are rooted in the right wing echo chamber.

And there lies the problem. You're too busy reacting and not pro acting. You can't talk about any of her pros, you can only talk about the opposition. Even when many of us have asked over and over and over again why you support Hillary Clinton and you can't come up with anything other than Trump.

Yep that's me I don't give a fuck about what she has done , I'll be voting for her over asshole of the century... now go ahead and tell me how you and the Free movement are so righteous and everyone else is so blind ....

MONTHS. And this isnt about you Jose. This is about all the regular contributors who can't answer that question.

If you feel that I'm being righteous, that's your problem, not mine dude. I'm not. It's a simple question.

However, after thinking about it, if the only reason one is voting for Hillary is because she's not trump, I guess that would be good to know.

I'm voting for Hillary because Bernie told me to. And he lost and is a loser. That's a fact. Got a question you'd like to ask Hillary?

BS44325

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Don't forget the guns they were running through benghazi.

Were they using the same planes they used to fly cocaine into Arkansas in the '70s and '80s?

It's amazing how you blow this off. You are clearly a non-interventionist and the war in Libya followed by the gun-running was exactly that. Nobody is claiming these actions were illegal but it certainly was a decision that did not work out in the administrations favour. What people aren't happy with is the failure to account for the policy, to discuss why it took place and where it went wrong. There should be some transparency on this and for someone who is as mad about Iraq as you appear to be it is quite surprising how you simply don't care. Libya was a war of choice that might have even had some merit and there should be a real discussion of the policy. Your inability to be consistent on the issue shows a real lean towards partisanship over any real dispute with an interventionist foreign policy.

I was against The Iraq war from before go. I was also very clear on my anti war stance for syria, Libya, invading Iran or any involvement in Yemen. You on the other hand continue to insist that the US should still have 170,000 troops in Iraq and cheered the Saudis in Yemen. On scales and magnitude of fuck ups, Libya pales in comparison and in fact of all of the US's military fuck ups, it probably barely registers a blip, except for the partisan neocon crowd, who see everything in black and white, wholly dismissing the complexities of the region and its people. Let me know when Canada has an "interventionist" foreign policy.

Cheered the Saudis in Yemen? What the hell are you talking about? And you claim you are anti-war but where was your outrage when King Xerxes and his Persian army invaded Greece? You never posted anything on the Battle of Thermopylae and yet we're supposed to believe that you are clearly anti-war.

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Don't forget the guns they were running through benghazi.

Were they using the same planes they used to fly cocaine into Arkansas in the '70s and '80s?

It's amazing how you blow this off. You are clearly a non-interventionist and the war in Libya followed by the gun-running was exactly that. Nobody is claiming these actions were illegal but it certainly was a decision that did not work out in the administrations favour. What people aren't happy with is the failure to account for the policy, to discuss why it took place and where it went wrong. There should be some transparency on this and for someone who is as mad about Iraq as you appear to be it is quite surprising how you simply don't care. Libya was a war of choice that might have even had some merit and there should be a real discussion of the policy. Your inability to be consistent on the issue shows a real lean towards partisanship over any real dispute with an interventionist foreign policy.

I was against The Iraq war from before go. I was also very clear on my anti war stance for syria, Libya, invading Iran or any involvement in Yemen. You on the other hand continue to insist that the US should still have 170,000 troops in Iraq and cheered the Saudis in Yemen. On scales and magnitude of fuck ups, Libya pales in comparison and in fact of all of the US's military fuck ups, it probably barely registers a blip, except for the partisan neocon crowd, who see everything in black and white, wholly dismissing the complexities of the region and its people. Let me know when Canada has an "interventionist" foreign policy.

Cheered the Saudis in Yemen? What the hell are you talking about? And you claim you are anti-war but where was your outrage when King Xerxes and his Persian army invaded Greece? You never posted anything on the Battle of Thermopylae and yet we're supposed to believe that you are clearly anti-war.

I was aghast.. AGHAST when Mark Antony attempted to invade Parthia simply to impress his whore wife, Cleopatra. All those lives lost.. for what? Not for the good of the Roman Empire, that's for damn sure. Fuckin' Easterners.

JC29856

What's more presidential then repeatedly claiming "I do not recall". She is ready to lead!
Not recall 20 times
Objections 84 times

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/hillary-answers-judicial-watch-under-oath-does-not-recall-most-her-tenure-secretary-


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-oath/

unsung

She used all of her memory when she sold her memoirs for millions.

Bentleyspop

JC29856 said:

What's more presidential then repeatedly claiming "I do not recall". She is ready to lead!
Not recall 20 times
Objections 84 times

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/hillary-answers-judicial-watch-under-oath-does-not-recall-most-her-tenure-secretary-


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-oath/

zerohedge?
Seriously?
Nothing from info wars or breitbart?

JC29856

Bentleyspop said:

JC29856 said:

What's more presidential then repeatedly claiming "I do not recall". She is ready to lead!
Not recall 20 times
Objections 84 times

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/hillary-answers-judicial-watch-under-oath-does-not-recall-most-her-tenure-secretary-


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-oath/

zerohedge?
Seriously?
Nothing from info wars or breitbart?

Besides shooting the messenger you have anything from zero hedge that proves to be false? You see how I linked the judicial watch press release which includes the transcript.

Does this help...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/10/13/politics/hillary-clinton-judicial-watch-response/index.html

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Don't forget the guns they were running through benghazi.

Were they using the same planes they used to fly cocaine into Arkansas in the '70s and '80s?

It's amazing how you blow this off. You are clearly a non-interventionist and the war in Libya followed by the gun-running was exactly that. Nobody is claiming these actions were illegal but it certainly was a decision that did not work out in the administrations favour. What people aren't happy with is the failure to account for the policy, to discuss why it took place and where it went wrong. There should be some transparency on this and for someone who is as mad about Iraq as you appear to be it is quite surprising how you simply don't care. Libya was a war of choice that might have even had some merit and there should be a real discussion of the policy. Your inability to be consistent on the issue shows a real lean towards partisanship over any real dispute with an interventionist foreign policy.

I was against The Iraq war from before go. I was also very clear on my anti war stance for syria, Libya, invading Iran or any involvement in Yemen. You on the other hand continue to insist that the US should still have 170,000 troops in Iraq and cheered the Saudis in Yemen. On scales and magnitude of fuck ups, Libya pales in comparison and in fact of all of the US's military fuck ups, it probably barely registers a blip, except for the partisan neocon crowd, who see everything in black and white, wholly dismissing the complexities of the region and its people. Let me know when Canada has an "interventionist" foreign policy.

Cheered the Saudis in Yemen? What the hell are you talking about? And you claim you are anti-war but where was your outrage when King Xerxes and his Persian army invaded Greece? You never posted anything on the Battle of Thermopylae and yet we're supposed to believe that you are clearly anti-war.

You most certainly were cheering the Saudi/US intervention in Yemen. You own that funeral bombing.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

What's more presidential then repeatedly claiming "I do not recall". She is ready to lead!
Not recall 20 times
Objections 84 times

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/hillary-answers-judicial-watch-under-oath-does-not-recall-most-her-tenure-secretary-


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-oath/

This is a civil, legal case where the burden of proof is preponderance (e.g. 51%). Why wouldn't her lawyers raise objections where appropriate? And if you've ever been deposed, you know the coaching you get beforehand... don't speculate, don't wander, don't guess. Unless you 1000% know, you don't answer.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

What's more presidential then repeatedly claiming "I do not recall". She is ready to lead!
Not recall 20 times
Objections 84 times

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/hillary-answers-judicial-watch-under-oath-does-not-recall-most-her-tenure-secretary-


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-oath/

This is a civil, legal case where the burden of proof is preponderance (e.g. 51%). Why wouldn't her lawyers raise objections where appropriate? And if you've ever been deposed, you know the coaching you get beforehand... don't speculate, don't wander, don't guess. Unless you 1000% know, you don't answer.

Agree, but the zero hedge raises good points against the actual testimony not fabrications or falsehoods. If you read the testimony you will see that the questions don't ask her to recall specific events per se but asks her understanding of or expectations.

Isn't it ironic that Hillary recognizes the legal basis for using "state.gov" accounts but then says that she "does not recall whether she had a specific expectation that the State Department would receive FOIA requests for or concerning her e-mail."

unsung

Bentleyspop said:

JC29856 said:

What's more presidential then repeatedly claiming "I do not recall". She is ready to lead!
Not recall 20 times
Objections 84 times

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/hillary-answers-judicial-watch-under-oath-does-not-recall-most-her-tenure-secretary-


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-oath/

zerohedge?
Seriously?
Nothing from info wars or breitbart?

After the email release where it shows mainstream media colluding with her where do you expect someone do find negative reporting on her? The media is in bed with her.

Free

unsung said:

Bentleyspop said:

JC29856 said:

What's more presidential then repeatedly claiming "I do not recall". She is ready to lead!
Not recall 20 times
Objections 84 times

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/hillary-answers-judicial-watch-under-oath-does-not-recall-most-her-tenure-secretary-


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-oath/

zerohedge?
Seriously?
Nothing from info wars or breitbart?

After the email release where it shows mainstream media colluding with her where do you expect someone do find negative reporting on her? The media is in bed with her.

Yes but not FOXNews