Clinton's Plan To "Defeat ISIS" Is A Threat
Hillary Clinton's three part plan to defeat ISIS is to:
- Defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Destroy ISIS everywhere
- Prevent ISIS attacks in the U.S.A.
That plan, to me, seems similar to George W. Bush's plan to defeat the Taliban which was to defeat the Taliban. Or maybe more like Nixon's plan to defeat drugs which had nothing to do with drugs but was actually a plan to criminalize blacks and antiwar hippies.
The real motive behind the above Clinton nonsense may be the interest of the powers-that-are to keep the war on ISIS going forever. Obama already did his best to establish ISIS. He refrained from fighting it in its infancy in 2012, refrained from holding it back in Iraq to "regime change" Prime Minister Maliki and kept its revenues flowing until Putin shamed him into finally bombing its oil infrastructure.
Clinton's plan, which declares only aims without any steps to reach them, would mean endless wars in this or that Middle East country and/or in Africa or Asia. It means further suppression of any privacy and opposition at home.
It is not a plan but a threat. Will she win votes with such nonsense?
Posted by b on March 24, 2016 at 6:22 UTC | Permalink
« previous pagefairleft at 101
The Stolypin regime had stabilized the situation after 1904, in part by policies encouraging well-to-do peasants to leave the mire. Political concessions were given and retracted.The Victorians/Edwardians as a group were fairly confident of their stability.
And there are any number of other examples of regimes looking well, until they don't.
Democrats at least acknowledge warming is happening, and don't deny the science. Libya is really an Anglo-French joint. The Democrats under Obama of course do not rate the Peace Prize he was given on spec. These depradations are chicken feed cf'd. to what Rethuglicans have done and intend to do.
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 26 2016 14:52 utc | 102
Question: NATO equals Soros equals Clinton's policies?
Posted by: Shadyl | Mar 26 2016 16:12 utc | 103
51;Snark?Her uterus has almost everything to do with her support.
The support can't be for success,of which the only thing she was successful in was tying herself to bent dick,and acquiring the power to be considered for POTUS.
Since she gained political office herself,can one point to one success?
A legacy of complete failure and a trail of lies and dishonest behavior.
Posted by: dahoit | Mar 26 2016 16:35 utc | 104
rufus: "Democrats at least acknowledge warming is happening, and don't deny the science." Right, words, no action. In your evaluation of politicians you seem to give less weight to actions -- for example, Hillary invading Libya, overthrowing Ukraine's democratic govt, and sponsoring Al Qaeda terrorism in Syria -- than you do to words that have never turned into action -- troll Trump's blatherings for example (which will change as soon as he secures the Repub nomination), or the Democratic Party President's blatherings on global warming. Hillary's wing of the Democratic Party took power in 1993 and has held the Presidency for 16 years since then. During all that time, words on global warming: lots. Action on global warming: zero.
Posted by: fairleft | Mar 26 2016 23:23 utc | 105
rufus magister says:
Democrats at least acknowledge warming is happening, and don't deny the science. Libya is really an Anglo-French joint. The Democrats under Obama of course do not rate the Peace Prize he was given on spec. These depradations are chicken feed cf'd. to what Rethuglicans have done and intend to do
lots of partisan apologetics crammed into that little paragraph, but i have a theory...
you tell us regularly that you're a communist, so i'll assume you're a member of the Communist Party(CPUSA).
(i mean, otherwise, calling yourself a communist in the USA today would be pretty meaningless, no?)
i see that CPUSA doesn't field candidates in national elections, having elected instead to work quietly in the shadow of the Democratic Party, where it makes its nest and whose candidates it endorses.
such a deferential relationship could at least help to explain your generally pedestrian views on, well, on just about everything...
Posted by: john | Mar 26 2016 23:45 utc | 106
I believe I have said I sympathize with the Spartacists, not the CPUSA or the social democrats.
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 27 2016 3:27 utc | 107
And so perhaps to maintain their credibility, the Dems. might have to actually do something, instead of ending discussion and consideration of the matter at all.
But when some gerrymandered districts in Florida actually get swept out to sea, then the Republicans will consider measures. Provided cuts are made elsewhere, of course.
It occurred to me that there is recent evidence of the ability of popular opinion to affect policy. The Obama Administration was deterred from intervention after they alleged a violation of the "red line" on chemical weapons.
I do not think it likely that things have changed substantially.
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 27 2016 3:39 utc | 108
Do I need to clarify? Use of chemical weapons in Syria. Hic!
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 27 2016 3:41 utc | 109
The comments to this entry are closed.
rufus @100
"Many thought the Romanovs looked pretty solid." No, there was instability from the 1890s and severe instability from 1904. This instability was generated by Russian revolutionaries risking their lives in hard, very large scale, and necessarily clandestine work. No remotely similar mass revolutionary organizing and communication has been taking place recently.
"Chomsky ... particularly stresses the importance of immediate action to prevent (moderate?) global warming." If he is very concerned about global warming, it is irrational -- based on the relevant history of the Clinton and Obama administrations -- for Chomsky to support the Democratic Party.
"It is not just Trump’s bullying swagger, his glee at torture ..." Clinton in Libya? "We came, we saw, he died." Clinton starting another war, using ISIS and al Qaeda head-chopping and torturing terrorists to overthrow the secular regime in Syria? Talk about bullying and torture, we have Hillary who is a passionate and widespread practicioner and funder of that crap versus a blowhard and his truly awful words.
"... the clear intent to escalate in the Mid-East ..." There's no way that phrase applies to Trump in reality world. There is of course massive evidence and real history telling us that CLINTON intends to escalate in the Middle East.
Posted by: fairleft | Mar 26 2016 12:23 utc | 101