Will Clinton Resist Her Inner Hawk?

[Peter1469]

Will Clinton Resist Her Inner Hawk? (http://blogs.voanews.com/us-opinion/2016/10/25/will-clinton-resist-her-inner-hawk/)

The Washington foreign policy establishment expects Hillary to be more of an interventionist than Obama. Their think tanks are cranking out position papers and giving them to her people. Their biggest desire is a no-fly zone in Syria. That courts war with Russia.


The Washington foreign policy establishment is salivating (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-foreign-policy-elites-not-sorry-to-see-obama-go/2016/10/20/bd2334a2-9228-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html) at the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidency, which promises to be more interventionist than Barack Obama’s administration and more open to elite views than a Donald Trump White House would be.

Think tanks are churning out papers on a variety of topics and pushing them under the noses of Clintonistas who are considered likely to land important positions assuming most polls are correct and Clinton beats Trump on November 8.


Many of the studies presume Clinton will be a hawk relative to Obama and carry out campaign promises to set up a safe zone in northern Syria for displaced Syrians, for example.


A recent paper (https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/17125124/MiddleEast-report-print.pdf) from the Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank closely associated with the Democratic Party, also advocates new outreach to traditional Middle East partners such as Saudi Arabia and Israel and a tougher line against Iran.

She is a liberal war hawk. But will she govern that way?

[Axiomatic]

Probably?.. Indubitably?.. I guess I'm not picking up on a lot of reasons to think she wouldn't.

[Peter1469]

Probably?.. Indubitably?.. I guess I'm not picking up on a lot of reasons to think she wouldn't.

Why? She pushed Obama to drive Libya into anarchy. Do you think she will refrain if she is commander in chief?

[Axiomatic]

Why? She pushed Obama to drive Libya into anarchy. Do you think she will refrain if she is commander in chief?
?

Oh, I see what happened. I was responding to the question at the bottom of the OP, not its title.

[Green Arrow]

Hillary will start out as an interventionist warhawk. If her wars and interventions become unpopular she will try to find a way to gracefully end them and then suddenly become a champion of peace.

Anything to secure more power.

[Ethereal]

Clinton will do whatever her corporate paymasters command her to do. If that means waging more needless wars of aggression where hundreds of thousands of innocent people are killed or ruined, then that's what she will do. She a soulless, money-grubbing puppet.

[stjames1_53]

...and that's the difference between Trump and Clinton. She's in it for more power. He's in it for us

[Green Arrow]

...and that's the difference between Trump and Clinton. She's in it for more power. He's in it for us
You are as naive as the Clinton supporters.

[del]

...and that's the difference between Trump and Clinton. She's in it for more power. He's in it for us

https://media.giphy.com/media/vWDrezW0rMjmM/giphy.gif

[Bethere]

Why? She pushed Obama to drive Libya into anarchy. Do you think she will refrain if she is commander in chief?
What? Anarchy is a bad thing?

I thought you and Chris thought of anarchy as some kind of libertarian utopia?

explain.

16560

@exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808)
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)

[Chris]

What? Anarchy is a bad thing?

I thought you and Chris thought of anarchy as some kind of libertarian utopia?

explain.

16560

@exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808)
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)


Another one who argues from ambiguity.

Anarchy has two basic SIMPLE meanings, one chaos, one rules without rulers.


Peter is not a libertarian anarchist but it still libertarian in a lot of his thinking.


The other guy I ignore.

[Green Arrow]

Another one who argues from ambiguity.

Anarchy has two basic SIMPLE meanings, one chaos, one rules without rulers.


Peter is not a libertarian anarchist but it still libertarian in a lot of his thinking.


The other guy I ignore.

Anarchy means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Let's not argue semantics, Chris. Nobody likes that.

[Peter1469]

You didn't think. That is the problem.


What? Anarchy is a bad thing?

I thought you and Chris thought of anarchy as some kind of libertarian utopia?

explain.

16560

@exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808)
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)

[del]

Anarchy means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Let's not argue semantics, Chris. Nobody likes that.
but, but definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive

here's a video to explain it


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lojaMRghCMY

[exploited]

Another one who argues from ambiguity.

Anarchy has two basic SIMPLE meanings, one chaos, one rules without rulers.


Peter is not a libertarian anarchist but it still libertarian in a lot of his thinking.


The other guy I ignore.

I don't blame you for ignoring me. Time and again, I've demonstrated the abysmal simplicity and naivety of your views. Consider something like the phrase "rules without rulers." What does that mean, practically speaking?

You don't know. I don't know. Nobody really knows, because it is a truly absurd idea. If there are rules, somebody has set them, and somebody enforces them. That somebody is a ruler.

Similarly, you often talk about how all knowledge is local and dynamic. Again, this is just an ideological talking point - you wouldn't know, because you don't actually participate in the democratic process, and your designs for humanity are at odds with what people want, on a local level. In fact, people often support government intervention precisely because of the local, dynamic knowledge they hold. But again, you use this simplistic phrase to rule out any sort of political decision-making that doesn't embody what you hold to be true.

The last thing I'll point out is this distinction you make between men's actions and men's designs. Those ideas that come from design are bound to fail... But those ideas that come about by actions are the ones that have staying power. Anything that is not your version of libertarianism is design, and anything that is your version of libertarianism is action. Meanwhile you have admitted many times before that your only idea for implementing libertarianism is convincing others that it is the correct way of doing things - you will not condone anything else, not even a transitional state. In other words, when you talk about action, what you are really referring to is a total lack of action. Whereas when you talk about design, what you are really referring to is action, which you dismiss immediately as unsustainable.

Cognitive dissonance: it defines everything you have said here, and it is quite the thing to behold.

[Tahuyaman]

Why? She pushed Obama to drive Libya into anarchy. Do you think she will refrain if she is commander in chief?


Is she a hawk?

Yes, she did push for the failed attempt at nation building in Libya, but not because she is a hawk. She did so because she thought that would make her and the administration look like military and foreign policy geniuses. They needed some type of foreign policy victory after becoming known for their bumbling incompetence.

No one really knows where she stands. She stands for whatever she thinks will put her in the best light based on the public's mood of the moment. She'll use polling to figure out just what that mood us.

There's no leadership ability what-so-ever with her. She goes where the wind blows.

[stjames1_53]

I don't blame you for ignoring me. Time and again, I've demonstrated the abysmal simplicity and naivety of your views. Consider something like the phrase "rules without rulers." What does that mean, practically speaking?

You don't know. I don't know. Nobody really knows, because it is a truly absurd idea. If there are rules, somebody has set them, and somebody enforces them. That somebody is a ruler.

Similarly, you often talk about how all knowledge is local and dynamic. Again, this is just an ideological talking point - you wouldn't know, because you don't actually participate in the democratic process, and your designs for humanity are at odds with what people want, on a local level. In fact, people often support government intervention precisely because of the local, dynamic knowledge they hold. But again, you use this simplistic phrase to rule out any sort of political decision-making that doesn't embody what you hold to be true.

The last thing I'll point out is this distinction you make between men's actions and men's designs. Those ideas that come from design are bound to fail... But those ideas that come about by actions are the ones that have staying power. Anything that is not your version of libertarianism is design, and anything that is your version of libertarianism is action. Meanwhile you have admitted many times before that your only idea for implementing libertarianism is convincing others that it is the correct way of doing things - you will not condone anything else, not even a transitional state. In other words, when you talk about action, what you are really referring to is a total lack of action. Whereas when you talk about design, what you are really referring to is action, which you dismiss immediately as unsustainable.

Cognitive dissonance: it defines everything you have said here, and it is quite the thing to behold.

there is a vast difference between "ruling" and "governing"

[exploited]

there is a vast difference between "ruling" and "governing"

Go on.

[Peter1469]

Yes she is a liberal hawk. She wants to use US military power for humanitarian concerns regardless of US vital national security interests. Here is an article (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-rise-susan-rice-samantha-power-8553)about liberal hawks, although it doesn't name Hillary - it should have.


Is she a hawk?

Yes, she did push for the failed attempt at nation building in Libya, but not because she is a hawk. She did so because she thought that would make her and the administration look like military and foreign policy geniuses. They needed some type of foreign policy victory after becoming known for their bumbling incompetence.

No one really knows where she stands. She stands for whatever she thinks will put her in the best light based on the public's mood of the moment. She'll use polling to figure out just what that mood us.

There's no leadership ability what-so-ever with her. She goes where the wind blows.

[Tahuyaman]

Yes she is a liberal hawk. She wants to use US military power for humanitarian concerns regardless of US vital national security interests. Here is an article (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-rise-susan-rice-samantha-power-8553)about liberal hawks, although it doesn't name Hillary - it should have.


Thats an interesting read. I don't know that it applies to Mrs.Clinton though.

[Peter1469]

Thats an interesting read. I don't know that it applies to Mrs.Clinton though.

It does. She is part of the same crowd. Several years ago I posted a thread about all three of them- Hillary, Powers, and Rice. It was specifically about them getting Obama into Libya.

[donttread]

Will Clinton Resist Her Inner Hawk? (http://blogs.voanews.com/us-opinion/2016/10/25/will-clinton-resist-her-inner-hawk/)

The Washington foreign policy establishment expects Hillary to be more of an interventionist than Obama. Their think tanks are cranking out position papers and giving them to her people. Their biggest desire is a no-fly zone in Syria. That courts war with Russia.



She is a liberal war hawk. But will she govern that way?


No. which is why the donkephant has created a situation where she is assured the white house and the global military industrial complex and prison industrial complex will be fed at all cost. After all without that we'd have to look at real under employment numbers and the true state of our fractured economy and we can't have that.

[Peter1469]

No. which is why the donkephant has created a situation where she is assured the white house and the global military industrial complex and prison industrial complex will be fed at all cost. After all without that we'd have to look at real under employment numbers and the true state of our fractured economy and we can't have that.

Risking war with Russia will do the defense industry good.

[MRogersNhood]

Will Clinton Resist Her Inner Hawk? (http://blogs.voanews.com/us-opinion/2016/10/25/will-clinton-resist-her-inner-hawk/)

The Washington foreign policy establishment expects Hillary to be more of an interventionist than Obama. Their think tanks are cranking out position papers and giving them to her people. Their biggest desire is a no-fly zone in Syria. That courts war with Russia.



She is a liberal war hawk. But will she govern that way?
She will do her globalist masters' bidding like clockwork.

[decedent]

Will Clinton Resist Her Inner Hawk? (http://blogs.voanews.com/us-opinion/2016/10/25/will-clinton-resist-her-inner-hawk/)

The Washington foreign policy establishment expects Hillary to be more of an interventionist than Obama. Their think tanks are cranking out position papers and giving them to her people. Their biggest desire is a no-fly zone in Syria. That courts war with Russia.



She is a liberal war hawk. But will she govern that way?

The Republican House just passed the no-fly zone bill, which you claim courts war with Russia.

[Grizz]

The Republican House just passed the no-fly zone bill, which you claim courts war with Russia.

The No-Fly Zone is untenable and will indeed lead to War with Russia AND Syria.

[Grizz]

But then so will NATO actions on the Russian Border.

[decedent]

But then so will NATO actions on the Russian Border.

Russia is increasingly provoking NATO.

I'm all for no-fly zones. I don't see defense as provocation, which is why I supported the Bush Doctrine in Iraq. No country should put up with bullying.

[Peter1469]

The Republican House just passed the no-fly zone bill, which you claim courts war with Russia.

That depends on whether they coordinated it with the Russians.

You don't have the military experience for this.

[decedent]

That depends on whether they coordinated it with the Russians.

You don't have the military experience for this.

Neither do you. But that's not the point. The point is that the Republicans may cause another imbalance in the world. They need to tread lightly. I'm fine with a no-fly zone, but not so fine with provoking Russia too much. This affects all of NATO, so there must be responsibility and accountability.

[Peter1469]

Neither do you. But that's not the point. The point is that the Republicans may cause another imbalance in the world. They need to tread lightly. I'm fine with a no-fly zone, but not so fine with provoking Russia too much. This affects all of NATO, so there must be responsibility and accountability.
I do. Dismissed.