dagblog - Comments for "Hillary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week"

Thanks for the advice.

Flavius — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 04:59:01 +0000

In reply to "Certainly she'll have mine

Thanks for the advice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com

barefooted — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:46:51 +0000

In reply to I would vote for this guy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-corbyn-and-the-coming-deb...

I would vote for this guy

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:33:38 +0000

In reply to First, if the primary

I would vote for this guy over Sanders.

http://warisacrime.org/content/peace-activist-leads-labour-party

First, if the primary

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:12:32 +0000

In reply to Hey Lulu. Howz tricks? So

First, if the primary election were today I would vote for Sanders over Clinton and there is no one I am aware of who might enter the race on the Democratic side whom I would expect to change that decision. I am not very enthusiastic about that choice because I want big changes in foreign policy and I would expect Sanders to be only a slight improvement. That said, I would not be at all surprised if Clinton would be even worse on FP than Obama has been. I certainly agree that Sanders is “way less bloodthirsty”. While I rate Obama low overall on FP, I do give him a lot of credit for the agreement with Iran and his realignment with Cuba.

Now for the tough part. When I started paying attention to our country’s relationship with the rest of the world I became appalled at our treatment of Central and South America. The condensed version of that story, as I see it, is that if we did not like the leader of a country we would change it and if our prefered choice was in danger from within his own country we would give them the means to stomp on their own people if that is what it took to keep them in power. This has been most true in Central America, I believe, but I also think that is only because it has been most doable there.

I do not believe that The U.S. has the power to install and protect the ruler of their choice in Syria or other countries in that region as, for instance, we did for so long in Central America. If though we take C.A. as an example of what we would do if we could it is obvious that we would support a leader that would serve our purposes, pick and install one if necessary, regardless the effect on the general population, and, if the affect caused a backlash that threatened our chosen leader we would give whatever aid was required, money, guns, training, etc, to stomp on any internal dissention if that is what it took for him to stay in control. It often was. If things started to get out of control anyway then there was little hesitation to send in our own armed forces. I consider all that to be a well established and undisputable fact.

I see little difference in our motives or tactics today to the extent that we are able to make them work. The tactic was in play and worked for a while in Iran under Pahlavi and in Iraq under Hussein as two examples but when it became necessary to take the step of sending in our own troops to maintain our desired power structure, Iraq being that example, we found that we couldn’t make it work there and our plan B of doing it with sanctions and bombs and support of proxies in Syria who have shown themselves to be viciously unacceptable if there are actually humanitarian motives involved in our choice, has been most instrumental in setting the region on fire.

So, what I was describing is the fork in the road we came to, as I see it. If we were to stipulate for the purpose of discussion that I am correct about where the other road would have led then I think the simple math of different rates of death and destruction concludes that the road not taken would have been the lesser of two bad choices. Further down that road we could still attempt to influence the situation in Syria for the better with benign tactics though the thought of that being an available solution seems at least a bit idealistic now. I think the time might well have passed when different policies could cure the current zombie apocalypse which might well grow much larger before it ever ebbs, if it is ever to do so.

So I'll offer a counterpoint. What if civilized nations had stood up firmly for the principle that a government which deploys the tools of national defense against it's own cities has lost legitimacy?

Would you put the U.S. in that category as Sherman was marching out of a burning Atlanta? Maybe if civilized countries had instituted a no-fly zone in Syria things would have gone better, they surely would have gone differently, but they might well have ended in a place much the same as they are now. The thing is, that is still resorting to a military solution and I think it would be hard to make a strong case that it would have had a high probability of involving significantly less death and destruction or that the ones who we helped finally win would have been significantly better for that country or significantly more benign in their methods of holding on to power if and when an organized power structure ever evolved. As a tribe, which they almost certainly would be a part of, they would very likely be more prejudicial in their treatment of other tribes under their control than Assad’s Syria was before the revolt.

I think I recall correctly that you supported a no-fly zone in Libya when I was against that too. I think that even early on if we had decided to pick winners in Syria from D.C. and expedite their success by becoming their air force that the result might have been much the same for Assad which some people would surely like but it would probably be just as rough on the general population as it was on Libya's.

I do not like that callous choices are sometimes the best that we are in a position to make but I think that is the case. I think tha best available choice right now would be an alliance with Assad, Russia, Iran and the U.S. [and telling Saudi Arabia and a couple other pools of number one crude to but out] if a military solution coming from the outside is to be attempted. Are all those on your list of 'civilized' countries. It doesn't really matter, it would ne politically impossible for our country to be a such an alliance, at least openly and aboveboard, even if it was an obviously best choice such as is the nuke agreement with Iran, for instance.

Anyway, again, I am glad you dropped by and hope to hear more from you. Football starts tonight at 6:30 this evening. That's the time when air power, via Romo, should actually be able to win the day.

YO Dude, Well I’ll be damned.

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:08:10 +0000

In reply to Hey Lulu. Howz tricks? So

YO Dude, Well I’ll be damned. First, I want to say that I am very glad for you to show up even though it is to put me on the spot with a very legitimate question which you summarized in your last paragraph. Next, I wish to beg off answering for a bit. I have the dregs of a bottle of bourbon starring me down and a few obligations when I finally wake up tomorrow, but I do realize the huge difference in my usual position and that of the one you are responding to. I know I cannot resolve that now and only hope I can later. Again, cheers, it’s good to hear from you. I will try to make a sensible reply.

Hey Lulu. Howz tricks? So

Anonymous kgb — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 03:07:59 +0000

In reply to But how might things have

Hey Lulu. Howz tricks? So does this mean you're for Sanders? He's almost crossed into being more electable than Clinton and is *way* less bloodthirsty.

That's an interesting argument in favor of propping up well documented bloody authoritarian regimes in the interest of promoting regional stability. Things certainly have come full circle, haven't they?

It's quaint that you believe we have that much control in the region. Our real range of options seems to be either assert or leave a vacuum. We basically left a vacuum ... so Saudi Arabia and Russia/Iran totally asserted. We weren't going to stop that. We *can't* build a wall around Syria to protect Assad (neither can Russia). What if our *only* real power is to be the Big Gorilla. Or not. I can surely tell you that removing American from the equation does not equal peace. People were going to war long before we came along.

So I'll offer a counter-point. What if civilized nations had stood up firmly for the principle that a government which deploys the tools of national defense against it's own cities has lost legitimacy? What if Western powers had answered nationalist pleas for a civilian no-fly safety zone when the dynamic really was a bunch of protesters and army deserters? What if that gave people the room to negotiate and come to a transitional solution that didn't involve slaughtering everyone that protested against Assad? The second civil war didn't break out in Lybia until 2014 .... in no small part because the proxy war going on in Syria spilled right across the border. Same with Iraq. Hell, the no-fly zone they were asking for would have cut right thought the middle of what is now a goddamn ISIL "caliphate". What if ISIL had never been able to take hold in parts of Syria because they were already internationally stabilized?

Just sayin. If we're playing "what if" with a completely wide-open alternate history ... isn't picking one that ends with the Syrian people under the thumb of a bloody dictator kind of a dick move?

If they could engage in

trkingmomoe — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:27:13 +0000

In reply to Yes - and they will six times

If they could engage in debates, I think we would not have to hear about emails anymore. The media is boring us to death right now and since they no longer have any real journalism chops to really go out and find some new news, we have to suffer through an old list of Hillary sins plus emails until the middle of October.

I think Debbie W-S is going to regret this tight rain on the candidates ability to engage in discussions with other candidates. It is hurting Clinton as well as the lesser known candidates.

We have a moral duty to

ocean-kat — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:45:02 +0000

In reply to They have no place to go

We have a moral duty to provide safety, as Germany is doing, for as many as we reasonably can.

One could make a reasonable argument based on population density that if Germany can take 1 million the US should take 7 million. I don't think it's possible to sell that to the American people.

Policy is important but a campaign is not just about policy. In some ways I agree with Buckley's maxim that he wanted the most conservative candidate that can win. I want the most liberal candidate that can win. For example I would like to see all or most religious tax exemptions ended. But I don't want Hillary or Sanders to run on that policy. They'd lose if they did. I'd also like to see all drugs legalized but I don't want Hillary or Sanders to run on it. It's another loser. I'd like to see them run on legalizing marijuana. That's a step in the right direction they can support and win with.

With the absolutely crazy candidates on the republican side the top priority is that a democrat wins. Especially with the Supreme Court in the balance.

What would a civil probe into

Ramona — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:44:21 +0000

In reply to Ramona - you write:

What would a civil probe into Hillary's emails prove if there is no criminal wrongdoing? Is somebody going to sue her for going against protocol, even though nothing bad happened? Can you say, "Ken Starr"?

But here's a thought, Hal. What if all of us are right and you're wrong?

Yes - and they will six times

barefooted — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:54:46 +0000

In reply to Yes. They should appear

Yes - and they will six times (would love to see more), along with the other Democratic candidates. Otherwise they can appear "together" and speak separately, but not debate. The Lincoln-Douglas reference seems odd since they represented two different parties.