Hillary Clinton Calls For Ground War In Syria & Iraq

[votesparks]

[cantbeserious]

1. The War Hawk In Chief Has Spoketh - This Citizen Abhors War - This Citizen Abhors HRC

[Scootaloo]

8. Hey now. At least this is one position where her direction never changes.

[cantbeserious]

9. Too Bad That Young Americans May Perish At Her Behest - This Citizen Would Not Die For Her

eom

[sheshe2]

16. Lol~

Bernie Sanders Wouldn’t End Obama’s Drone Program, Promises To Use It ‘Very Selectively’


Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders said he wouldn’t end the lethal drone program on Sunday in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

“I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case,” Sanders said. “What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective.”

read more

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/08/31/3697175/bernie-sanders-wouldnt-end-obamas-drone-program-promises-to-use-it-very-selectively/

[Fawke Em]

17. Um... you do know a drone is a mechanical weapon in the sky...

not young Americans on the ground, don't you?

[sheshe2]

19. Yes I do.

This President has been crucified for using them. CRUCIFIED. Yet now Bernie is for them they are cool.

Lol~

[daleanime]

22. Let me do something that you won't, on the issue of drones....

my candidate is wrong.


Now about your candidate on the larger issue of WAR......



But have a lovely night anyway.

[sheshe2]

24. Well read post 6

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251836817#post6

Have a great Hillary night, Sweet Dreams~

[Unknown Beatle]

29. At least he's not bought by Wall St. and big banks like Hillary is.

She will do the bidding of the 1% while Bernie will work for the 99% and that's one of the reasons I will vote for Sanders.

[sheshe2]

30. Ok.

[BeanMusical]

32. +1

[daleanime]

47. See, I knew that you won't....

or is it couldn't? Have to work on my grammar. Take care not to hurt yourself while lockstepping.

[PatrickforO]

42. I hate the drones because I think they create more terrorists than they

kill. That said, dramatically cutting attacks is a step in the right direction. I'm not gonna say Bernie is completely wrong, but let's hope he REALLY uses them sparingly.

Because this new call for ground action in Syria by Clinton is FAR worse. I do not support it. I will never support it. Clinton is wrong, wrong, wrong - she should NOT become CiC and I urge Dems who dislike and fail to see a valid reason for more wars in the Middle-East to stand up and oppose her stance here.

I also urge these same Dems to contact your Senators and Representatives and tell then NOT to extend even more WAR POWERS to the executive branch. Clinton supports that, too and again she's wrong, wrong, wrong.

[merrily]

2. Here we go.

Thanks, Dave.

[neverforget]

3. She talks about destroying ISIS but then goes on to say

"no fly zones to stop Assad from slaughtering civilians".

I think the Russians might have something to say about that. It's regime change.

"ground forces actually taking back more territory from ISIS"

Her Iraq vote was NOT a mistake. She knew exactly what she was doing. She's a hawk.

[SereneG]

46. SOB

Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Hillary is right that Assad has to go and ISIS has to go. But ground troops is crazy and BTW FECK Putin#!!!

[Autumn]

4. Air strikes will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory??

Holy fucking shit!! Seriously why the fuck would democrats want to vote for that shit.

[BlueStateLib]

5. Sanders has actually pushed for the repressive Saudi Arabian regime to engage in more intervention i

Where are the Saudi troops? With the third largest military budget in the world and an army far larger than ISIS, the Saudi government must accept its full responsibility for stability in their own region of the world. Ultimately, this is a profound struggle for the soul of Islam, and the anti-ISIS Muslim nations must lead that fight. While the United States and other western nations should be supportive, the Muslim nations must lead.”
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-calls-saudi-demand-for-us-ground-troops-offensive

They’ve got to get their hands dirty. They’ve got to get their troops on the ground. They’ve got to win that war with our support. We cannot be leading the effort. Even worse, after the Saudis started bombing Yemen with U.S. government backing earlier this year, killing thousands and leading to what the UN is now calling a “humanitarian catastrophe,” and suffering that is “almost incomprehensible,” Sanders continued to promote this scheme of getting the Saudis to do more.

So Sanders and Saudi planners seem to be on the same page. But does Sanders really believe that expanded war by an autocratic state in a critical region will breed good outcomes? Sanders doesn’t seem to take money from Lockheed Martin — though he’s backed their F-35 slated to be based in Vermont — but his stance on Saudi Arabia must bring a smile to the faces of Military-Industrial Complex bigwigs.

[CJCRANE]

13. There is this theme that foreign Sunni troops need to take over

and occupy Sunni held areas of Syria and Iraq.

It would just be another form of foreign occupation.

It's like saying that it's okay for Catholic Germans to invade and occupy Catholic areas of Poland.

It's absurd but it shows the real agenda.

[BainsBane]

6. Deliberately misleading: Not American ground troops.

Here is the text of the excerpt used that leaves out the part about the troops not being American.

A more effective coalition air campaign is necessary, but not sufficient, and we should be honest about the fact that to be successful, airstrikes will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory from ISIS. Like President Obama, I do not believe that we should again have 100,000 American troops in combat in the Middle East. That is just not the smart move to make here. If we have learned anything from 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that local people and nations have to secure their own communities. We can help them, and we should, but we cannot substitute for them. But we can and should support local and regional ground forces in carrying out this mission.

http://time.com/4120295/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-isis/
If Hillary Clinton is so awful, why is it necessary to mislead people as to what she said? Why aren't her actual words, in context, bad enough to suit you?

Bernie Sanders supports the same coalition approach to war on ISIS. He made that very clear during the debate. So what is it exactly that you are objecting to? Are you upset she isn't pretending it can be easily accomplished with airstrikes? Or is it not the policy at all but her? Because you need to explain why this outrages you and not Sanders' support for war on ISIS.

[Autumn]

10. "Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS but to defeat and destroy ISIS."

And here is more that was left out

After a major terrorist attack, every society faces a choice between fear and resolve. The world’s great democracies can’t sacrifice our values or turn our backs on those in need. Therefore, we must choose resolve. And we must lead the world to meet this threat.

And to support this campaign, Congress should swiftly pass an updated authorization to use military force. That will send a message to friend and foe alike that the United States is committed to this fight. The time for delay is over. We should get this done.

[BeanMusical]

39. She's really bloodthirsty.

As long as it's not her who's doing the fighting and risk being killed. Oh wait, sniper fire!

[Renew Deal]

53. Most Democrats support an updated AUMF.

They think the current one is too broad and endless (which it is)

[Autumn]

56. Yes let us continue the war on terrorism and get a brand new resolution from Congress

to use military force. It has worked so well in the past as Hillary should well know

You can't have a war on terrorism because that's not a actual enemy, it's an abstract. It's like having a war on dandruff. That war will be eternal and pointless. It's idiotic.
That's not a war, it's a slogan. it's a lie. It's advertising, which is the only art form we ever invented in America. And we use it to sell soap, wars and presidential candidates in the same fashion."

Gore Vidal

[Renew Deal]

62. I think you're wrong on this one.

The reason for updating the AUMF is to put an end date on it. Currently the president has unlimited, unending authority to fight "terrorism." There is no limit to location, duration, or deadline. The reason Democrats have pushed to update it is to put an expiration date on it.

BTW, Sanders voted for the 2001 AUMF.

[Vattel]

64. That is completely wrong. The AUMF after 911 only authorized

fighting Al Qaeda and those protecting, aiding, etc. Al Qaeda. It wasn't an authorization to fight all terrorism.

[Renew Deal]

69. Here it is

Al Queda isn't mentioned at all. Terrorism is mentioned 3 times.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm


[107th Congress Public Law 40]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ040.107]


[[Page 115 STAT. 224]]

Public Law 107-40
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate and House.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 37 (2001):
Sept. 18, Presidential statement.

<all>

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm

[Vattel]

74. Okay, I hope you were joking.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons."

[Autumn]

65. How much clearer does it have to be?

And to support this campaign, Congress should swiftly pass an updated authorization to use military force. That will send a message to friend and foe alike that the United States is committed to this fight. The time for delay is over. We should get this done.

[Renew Deal]

70. That's clear

The only part missing is about the end date. Of course the military crowd prefers the old law which allows them to do anything they want forever.

[Autumn]

76. You think this batch of republicans in congress is more reasonable

now than they were back then? Because I'm pretty darn sure that any new resolution this crew will pass will let them do anything they want forever also.

[SunSeeker]

11. Thanks, BainsBane. The OP's title is dishonest. nt

[sheshe2]

14. I am surprised.

[senz]

67. See comment #10

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=836990

[Fawke Em]

18. This depends on which day and what group she's talking to.

Stop treating us like we're stupid.

[Autumn]

51. She did call for a ground war, and she also said we should help carry out their mission.

There is nothing misleading about that title.

A more effective coalition air campaign is necessary, but not sufficient, and we should be honest about the fact that to be successful, airstrikes will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory from ISIS. Like President Obama, I do not believe that we should again have 100,000 American troops in combat in the Middle East. That is just not the smart move to make here. If we have learned anything from 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that local people and nations have to secure their own communities. We can help them, and we should, but we cannot substitute for them. But we can and should support local and regional ground forces in carrying out this mission.

After a major terrorist attack, every society faces a choice between fear and resolve. The world’s great democracies can’t sacrifice our values or turn our backs on those in need. Therefore, we must choose resolve. And we must lead the world to meet this threat.

And to support this campaign, Congress should swiftly pass an updated authorization to use military force. That will send a message to friend and foe alike that the United States is committed to this fight. The time for delay is over. We should get this done.

[bvf]

20. Sure thing there, Scooter.

"Like President Obama, I do not believe that we should again have 100,000 American troops in combat in the Middle East."

Yeah, 90,000 should do the trick, she thought to herself.

[sheshe2]

31. Hillary

[BeanMusical]

33. Hillary's hair are on fire?

OK.

[sheshe2]

35. Nope.

The people who are terrified of her.



Some peeps are .

[BeanMusical]

38. Well, chicken-hawks are terrifying hybrid creatures.

[bvf]

34. Direct from hillaryclintonsupporters.com I see.

No surprise there.

A welcoming place to unwind on time-out, one imagines.

Thanks for the index, btw. Some promising stuff in there, although I think it a bit juvenile to name any smilies after DU members.

[sheshe2]

36. Cool place built by an amazing man.

I adore him.

Hmmm, time out? Is that a threat?

[bvf]

37. Not a threat, just an extrapolation

based on your profile.

[BeanMusical]

40. So Bill's an engineer?

You have to be to build a sewer.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Thanks, BainsBane. The OP's title is intentionally misleading.

EOM

[KingCharlemagne]

50. Whether the troops are American seems immaterial to me before the fact that

HRC advocates taking sides in an Arab-Arab civil war. We have seen how well that worked in the years since WWII. But we are supposed to double down on this failed strategy?????

[morningfog]

60. You are lying. She said embed US troops in Iraq amd

ground troops to Syria.

[Vattel]

66. I think she is talking about some American ground troops, just not 100,000 or more.

Do you think she means no American ground troops at all?

[BainsBane]

77. She talks about special forces

You can read the whole speech at the link. One of the key purposes of what she says is to explain to people that it cannot be accomplished easily. The US should know what it is getting into. She also talks about specific diplomatic measures the US should take and how to work with various countries in the region and beyond.

[Vattel]

78. Unfortunately, the speech doesn't specify how many American soldiers on the ground she has in mind

except to say less than 100,000. It worries me a lot.

[BainsBane]

80. It does specify

That she doesn't favor the US operating as an invading force, that the US role should be to support regional allies, not fight the war for them. This, I think, is not just a concern about the reaction of the American public but due to the fact it backfires.

She will be pressed further in the debates, as she well should be. We can then get a better sense of whether or how the candidates differ in regard to Syria.

[Vattel]

82. agreed

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. She's trying to put us into a war against Russia and Iran

NO way.

Even if it's just a US proxy army vs. a Russian proxy army, it's stupid beyond all belief. GTFO.

[Fairgo]

12. I remain gobsmacked

So expanding the theatre of war is OK as long as its not our troops, until it is our troops, at which point, support the troops!

And I assume we will provide the big metal party favours. That'll be good for the economy.

[sabrina 1]

15. So who is ISIS? Where are they? How come no one noticed them for ten years

or more as they gained all the POWER???

Does anyone ask any questions anymore or are we a nation of zombies who just nod our heads when the government tells to?

I don't get this at all.

All of a sudden we start hearing about this POWERFUL STATE that is over running everything in the ME who seem to have come out of nowhere.

And we are going to do what? Spend another 15 years chasing ghosts around the ME, killing the #1 Guy ten times before people catch on?

At least I wish they would change the script a little.

[bvf]

23. Spot on.

"Give the people a light, and they'll follow it anywhere!

[Major Hogwash]

57. Hillary has no intention of ever ending the wars . . .

. . . in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Lebanon, and she wants to invade Iran.

[sabrina 1]

58. Yes, it becomes more and more obvious over the years that her vote on Iraq was not

'a mistake' as she now says. That is why it is so urgent for the people to elect people, not just to the WH but to Congress also, who will at least try to stop these awful policies.

[bvf]

21. Well, no shit. n/t

[Roy Rolling]

25. Why does one call for a war?

So that if the opponents are slow-to-anger they can be labeled as pacifists and soft.

You know the rest of the Goebbels alleged formula.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Isn't it swell she has so much foreign policy experience?

Maybe, someday, with a lot of luck, she may get something right. Just not this time.

[BeanMusical]

41. +1

[Purveyor]

27. ..

Uh

[DonCoquixote]

28. and while yesyesyes we cannot let Jeb in

is it not a farce that we cannot choose a candidate that does NOT want this war, that will flirt with a lifetime of war, precisely when we need to be unified to order to keep from drowning in rising waters.

Part of we wonder if China is laughing or crying, laughing because the West is handing them the world, crying because they know that they will join us in the void soon after.

[leftofcool]

43. Dishonest and misleading title, but you keep trying.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. Yeah, uh, Chelsea first.

And since you love perpetual war, followed by YOUR granddaughter.

[RiverLover]

45. Pssssssst

Pssssssst: Hillary and Her GOP Rivals Have Pretty Much the Same Plan to Deal With ISIS
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/19/hillary_clinton_s_isis_plan_is_almost_the_same_as_republicans.html

[Robbins]

48. Let me ask everyone serious question

she will claim she isn'tt alking about americans in ground war In iraq and syria but do you really believe her?

I sure don't.she supported bush on iraq.she pushed for intervention In Libya.and she is in favor for more action In Syria than
Obama.For me it's based on her actions In past.

[Renew Deal]

52. She called for exactly the same thing as Sanders

Sanders called for a coalition of the willing and the "neighbors" to invade.

[morningfog]

71. Link to Sanders calling for embedded US troops in Iraq

And US ground forces in Syria?

[Renew Deal]

72. Link to Hillary saying that

[morningfog]

75. Her supporters should listen to what she says.

http://time.com/4120295/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-isis/

Now, the obstacles to achieving this are significant. On the Iraqi side of the border, Kurdish forces have fought bravely to defend their own lands and to re-take towns from ISIS, but the Iraqi national army has struggled, and it’s going to take more work to get it up to fighting shape. As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes.

(Snip)

On the Syrian side, the big obstacle to getting more ground forces to engage ISIS, beyond the Syrian Kurds who are already deep in the fight, is that the viable Sunni opposition groups remain understandably preoccupied with fighting Assad who, let us remember, has killed many more Syrians than the terrorists have. But they are increasingly under threat from ISIS as well.
So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership, and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight. And we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units.



Plus she wants a no-fly zone in Syria, which requires troops.

[99Forever]

55. ...

“Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time” -Harry S Truman

[AtomicKitten]

59. Mark my word: This will be her undoing.

I've read here that some think foreign policy is her strong suit, but I posit it is her Achilles heel. She is a neoliberal hawk.

Americans and specifically Democrats are sick of war. Many including me voted for Pres Obama because he promised to end the wars (after doubling down in Afghanistan). Procrastination on O's part combined with GOP obstructionism and Third Way hubris prevented that from happening.

Bernie is what I thought Obama was in this regard, and I believe Bernie will extricate us from the ME nightmare.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. We will see Democrats being very wary of her Warhawk stance

[morningfog]

61. I will never vote for her. Ever in any election.

[PowerToThePeople]

68. Shocking!

No. Not really.

[WillyT]

73. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[TIME TO PANIC]

79. The TPP is a bigger threat to us than ISIS.

We actually lose our sovereignty to multinational corporations.

[EndElectoral]

81. Often wonder if she wishes to return to the Long War doctrine

http://www.thenation.com/article/obama-orders-end-long-war-doctrine/