Stopping Clinton is top reason people are voting for Trump, vice versa

[brizoda 4,176]

Hillary on Israel

“She sounds like Netanyahu”: Hillary Clinton goes extra hawkish in her biased, die-hard pro-Israel AIPAC speech

Clinton's speech was full of distortion, belligerence and uncritical support of Israel, totally ignoring its crimes

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/she_sounds_like_netanyahu_hillary_clinton_goes_extra_hawkish_in_her_biased_die_hard_pro_israel_aipac_speech/

[LaLuna 12,732]

Sadly, this is how democracy works nowadays, you don't vote for someone, you vote against someone. 

[lego 44,165]

20 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Furthermore, it's not the USA's responsibility for what happens to people after they receive the weapons.

 

USA is openly supporting and helping SA in bombing of Yemen.

 

21 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

These are Obama's foreign policies. Blame him not her.

 

Right, so did she oppose him? No.

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

16 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

I'm blaming them both, but Bush is not in this election race. We are now talking about her past and how she never learned from those mistakes. She repeated them. She didn't apologize.

Those dictators were ****, but funding rebels and trying to kill those regime lunatics only led to more sectarianism, violence and terrorism.

We will never agree about her stance on Palestine and the way she talks about whole conflict. She's just repeating same old Israeli hasbara from right wing Israeli government. 

 

Look I get it. You dislike that she voted for the authorization. That's fine. Still it's important to make the distinction between her intent and the outcome. The former was very much justified, and the latter was out of her hands given that Senators have no say in the executive decisions. That's all there is to it.

“I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past,” Clinton told reporters at an event in Cedar Falls, Iowa, adding that “what we now see is a very different and very dangerous situation.”

“The United States is doing what it can but ultimately this has to be a struggle that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are determined to win for themselves,” said Clinton. “And we can provide support, but they’re going to have to do it.”

----

I don't know. You seem adamant on painting her as an unrepentant person. She won't apologize for her principles. That they have not always had the positive results she hoped for is not her fault. The people need to take responsibility as well. They failed.

----

I don't get why you think I disagree with you on Palestine. I have known Palestinians my entire life. I relate to their struggles as someone who lived in a country where stability was nonexistent, and where your religion could get you in trouble. What I disagree with you is your stance towards Israel. It's a country now. It has its own citizens and its own people. When people partake in diplomatic actions towards it, it's not for the government. The people there need protecting as well. It's why Hillary does not demonize them for doing what is necessary to protect themselves.

She has never outright stated that she supports any of the atrocities they commit. You make that implication yourself.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

12 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

USA is openly supporting and helping SA in bombing of Yemen.

 

 

Right, so did she oppose him? No.

 

How is it bad to support that? Yemen is currently held by Iranian backed fascists who pose a threat to the stability in the Middle East. Do you want World War 3 in the Middle East to erupt by remaining passive and allowing Iran to increase its hold over the area?

As someone who is from a country which is held hostage by Iranian-backed Hezbollah, I'd ask you why you think it's OK to let it get to that point? Do you support Hezbollah?

Stop demonizing military activities. They are often necessary. Implying otherwise is saying that the USA should not have helped Europe during WW2. Really?

-----

She did oppose the president. However she only serves as an adviser. She cannot overrule him. If you're saying she's better off resigning than implementing his plans, then you're essentially telling her to give up from having a positive influence on Obama's plans.

FYI, Obama is far more conservative than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy. She was pulling him to slow down.

[lego 44,165]

^^That was not apology and she repeated her "mistake".

I'll let you have the last word, cause I don't need any stress today. She clearly had issue with being NEUTRAL on the conflict and took the side of the oppressor, while demonizing the oppressed. That same old "right to defend" is so lame, even Hamas can claim the same about their own people. Last war in 2014 started from Israeli side as a revenge for 3 kidnapped Israelis  so with collective punishment over 2,3k dead Gazans paid the price. That is not defending. That is aggression. And she defends that.

I can't argue with someone who clears USA from ANY responsibility for all the wars and mess in the ME and other parts of the world, that's like I'm arguing with a republican supporter.

Anyway, that's it from me. 

 

 

[lego 44,165]

22 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

How is it bad to support that? Yemen is currently held by Iranian backed fascists who pose a threat to the stability in the Middle East. Do you want World War 3 in the Middle East to erupt by remaining passive and allowing Iran to increase its hold over the area?

As someone who is from a country which is held hostage by Iranian-backed Hezbollah, I'd ask you why you think it's OK to let it get to that point? Do you support Hezbollah?

 

Oh God. 

No I do not support Hezbollah. I'm aware of the Houthis in Yemen, they could've been crushed long time ago, but you are asking me "how is it bad to support bombing which killed over 3000 civilians", really? Yemen is the poorest country in region, people are literally starving there. You should check the news from there.

I don't know how can you support and justify clear war crimes. The airstrikes lasted for a year(?) and they still didn't achieve anything. 

Concurrently, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia[8] launched military operations by using airstrikes to restore the former Yemeni government and the United States provided intelligence and logistical support for the campaign.[6]According to the UN, from March 2015 to March 2016 over 6,500 people have been killed in Yemen, including 3,218 civilians.[57]"

 

Something is wrong with "intelligence and logistical support" when this big number of people have to die. 

 

I hope you won't ask me any silly questions anymore, like the one above, cause I don't have time for this ****. 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

17 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

Oh God. 

No I do not support Hezbollah. I'm aware of the Houthis in Yemen, they could've been crushed long time ago, but you are asking me "how is it bad to support bombing which killed over 3000 civilians", really? Yemen is the poorest country in region, people are literally starving there. You should check the news from there.

I don't know how can you support and justify clear war crimes. The airstrikes lasted for a year(?) and they still didn't achieve anything. 

Concurrently, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia[8] launched military operations by using airstrikes to restore the former Yemeni government and the United States provided intelligence and logistical support for the campaign.[6]According to the UN, from March 2015 to March 2016 over 6,500 people have been killed in Yemen, including 3,218 civilians.[57]"

 

Something is wrong with "intelligence and logistical support" when this big number of people have to die. 

I hope you won't ask me any silly questions anymore, like the one above, cause I don't have time for this ****. 

Well then you need to be consistent, because in case you haven't realized, military operations in the Middle East are never clear cut and dry. They hide among civilians, using them as meat shields. Unless you are suggesting we leave them to their own devices, these operations are necessary. Do you think diplomacy can be solved through words when many forces are uncooperative and even openly hostile?

The deaths of 3000 civilians are unfortunate but they pale in comparison to the number of people would suffer or die if these situations are left to fester. 

I'm not supporting war crimes. In this scenario there is no plausible alternative. Sending in ground troops would only cause more deaths on both sides. Air strikes are the best option here. They come with the horrible side effect of being indiscriminate when it comes to bombing locations. If there are civilians in the vicinity of these offenders, then they get hit too. It's not like they are actively bombing civilian areas.

Do you think these have accomplished nothing? They have kept them subdued and on the defensive. Eventually they will crack. These situations are not resolved in a matter of days.

You are oversimplifying the situation a lot. You ignore that these civilian deaths are caused by the fascists hiding among them. You ignore that these fascists would likely kill as much of their own population to subdue them if left to their own devices. You ignore that these fascists would likely support or kill people from other countries. You ignore the fact that Iran is trying to expand its influence in the Middle East.

If you want peace, prepare for war. War is never pretty.

[Melech 9,900]

On 6. Mai 2016 at 7:31 PM, YourSweet666 said:

^^That was not apology and she repeated her "mistake".

I'll let you have the last word, cause I don't need any stress today. She clearly had issue with being NEUTRAL on the conflict and took the side of the oppressor, while demonizing the oppressed. That same old "right to defend" is so lame, even Hamas can claim the same about their own people. Last war in 2014 started from Israeli side as a revenge for 3 kidnapped Israelis  so with collective punishment over 2,3k dead Gazans paid the price. That is not defending. That is aggression. And she defends that.

I can't argue with someone who clears USA from ANY responsibility for all the wars and mess in the ME and other parts of the world, that's like I'm arguing with a republican supporter.

Anyway, that's it from me. 

 

 

Those teens were killed and an aggression 

[lego 44,165]

3 minutes ago, Simon said:

Those teens were killed and an aggression 

 

And Shin Bet knew about it and knew who did it, but instead of punishing the perpetrators Israeli state decided to kill 2,300+ people, wound 10.000, destroy their only powerplant and their infrastructure and test some new weapons

Abu Khdeir was a teen, burned alive, was revenge for his death suppose to be collective punishment on Israeli civilian population? No? That's right.

Stop dragging me to old discussions.