dagblog - Comments for "How Clinton Can Fall in Love With Free Trade All Over Again"

There's a question whether

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 09:17:51 +0000

In reply to Thanks moat. Regarding Russia

There's a question whether Russia's been focused on ISIS or rebels, and its altercation with Turkey meanwhile was not helpful.

Russia was helpful in getting Syria to relinquish chemical weapons - perhaps to mischievously pull our tail a bit, but still a win for all.

Not quite true - you're

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 09:12:59 +0000

In reply to Whether any CiC would make me

Not quite true - you're basing your vote and trying to influence others based on Hillary's 2002 vote and 4 years as SoS as enabling 15 years of unneeded Mideast military intervention, presumably better done with Bernie in charge and more local self-determinism (perhaps with Russian guidance).

Similar to Mozart's response to the Emperor, which (Democratic initiated) notes should we remove?

Good points.

moat — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:50:28 +0000

In reply to No, but I'll try to address

Good points.

No, but I'll try to address

ocean-kat — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:40:09 +0000

In reply to Ocean, would you be willing

No, but I'll try to address the question you asked me. PP and a couple of others here like to make these multipoint posts when each of those points need their own blog with their own discussion. For example I'm not interested in how a person answers the question, " Would you have invaded Afghanistan post-9/11? " I'm only interested in how they defend their answer when challenged. What are the arguments and counter arguments. I don't really like these broad based discussions. I think it ignores the complexity of each individual situation and leaves out the nuance. I prefer a more limited and deeper debate

I think the answers require a level of nuance that won't be approached when there are several somewhat related but separate questions. And there will be little debate on each individual topic. I would have "invaded" Afghanistan but in a much different way than Bush. There's your simple answer to the first question. It doesn't really tell you much. What does one actually mean by "invade" And how would I have done it differently? That requires another paragraph or two.

But you know we did invade in the way Bush decided to. I'm not too inclined to rehash that. What would have happened if we had sustained that invasion instead of moving resources long before that fight was over to invade Iraq? That's a whole nother part of the discussion. And it's also another fact on the ground. Bush did move resources to Iraq.

So you see, with my personal preferences for debate topics and my time constraints I don't want to discuss whether we should have invaded Afghanistan at all and definitely not in the context of several other questions. The question that interests me more is how Obama handled the mess he was given. Not whether we should have gotten into this mess in the first place. And how one thinks that strategy should or should not be changed in the future.

Gotta go, I might add a few more thoughts later tonight.

Got it.

moat — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:31:24 +0000

In reply to Thanks moat. Regarding Russia

Understood, you are not attempting to explain the situation in Syria.

I guess we are back at the topic of what separates tactics and strategy we have discussed previously. Figuring out that sort of thing is what a Commander in Cheif does. I hope the next one does not screw that work up too badly.

Thanks moat. Regarding Russia

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:58:44 +0000

In reply to I am glad you brought up

Thanks moat. Regarding Russia my only assertion I made here and now is that they have been more affective in recent months at "rolling back ISIS" in Syria than has been the actions of the U.S. for a couple years and I made that assertion because PP's question premised a perception that to the extent that there has been some military success it is an Obama success.

I am glad you brought up

moat — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:42:46 +0000

In reply to Based on what I knew, or

I am glad you brought up these matters. I agree with the statement made in your post that foreign policy has not really been discussed in this election cycle. I would like to give my own response to PP's questions as a point of contrast:

I opposed the Afghanistan invasion because of the way it was carried out. Instead of focusing on the Al Qaeda elements, the demand that the Taliban deliver them was a device that was convenient for the purposes of justifying the invasion but had many consequences that we are still dealing with and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

I agree with your paragraph concerning Iraq but would like to point out that much of the impulse to go there was a result of the bad things left hanging from the first "Gulf War" Top of my list: Leaving the Shiites out to die after suggesting we could help them if they helped us. They got the wrong end of that stick.

Sovereignty issues are important. I think we need to square up to those issues and address them. On the other hand, I don't think there is a golden past where we used to be good and then became less good. I cannot accept responsibility for our past while making it into something it never was at the same time. In my mind, this issue is one of the most important ones.

The Russians are part of the problem in Syria, not the solution. The same may be said for the US and has been said. I am in not in a position to judge such a complicated situation that is the result of generations of past situations but I am willing to argue all day and night that the Russians are not the adults in the room. This is how they played Vietnam.

History: is it a place or a story?

Ocean, would you be willing

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:29:20 +0000

In reply to There often seems to be this

Ocean, would you be willing to take a shot at answering those questions too that PP asked of me?

Whether any CiC would make me

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:27:03 +0000

In reply to Dog just ate homework, but

Whether any CiC would make me happy is irrelevant to what we can expect Hillary to do as CiC. My state of mind and any action I could possibly take will have zero influence on national affairs, but make it about me if you wish. Sorry 'bout your dog but when you get the time and if you get the inclination I would still like to see your answers to your questions.

There often seems to be this

ocean-kat — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:03:58 +0000

In reply to Dog just ate homework, but

There often seems to be this idea that if America just stayed out these third rate countries with a third tier military would just work it out by themselves. If the first tier powers withdraw that just leaves the ground open for the second tier powers to work their will. Bad as our interventions with other first tier powers have sometimes been I'm even less confident in the good will of the second tier powers that would likely take our place.