Madeline Albright slams Bernie Sanders for lack of knowledge on foreign policy-

[SouthoftheAndes]

FYI I like Bernie and think only the most extreme and far left people hate on him for supporting military interventions, humanitarian concerns, drone strikes and for funding military operations. Sanders, is careful with the use of force which is a good thing.

My point was just to highlight how a radical can take issue with anything that is meant to protect the nation.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Bernie supports killing little children with drone strikes.
Bernie supports the "evil zionist state" and turns a blind eye to Saudi Arabia violence

I mean if you want me to play it that far and like an idiot I can. Just so you know by the way true socialists dislike Sanders because they claim he represents 'statism' with capitalism. Why did I mention that? Because you are starting to state the same stuff that hardcore 'socialists' and "non-interventionists" like to spew. And if that is the case then I thought id return fire with what they say about Bernie Sanders.

Or if you want to go the conspiracy route check this out it might appeal to all the infowars fans



1) Iraq was a mistake but for 100th million time I don't fault her or Joe Biden or anyone for making that vote especially when they were U.S. Senators and were shown faulty/false evidence by the Bush administration. You know that Senators meet in private with the administration and their sources right? Plus she later came out against Iraq as did Kerry.

2) Don't be ridiculous she lost 2008 because Obama ran a better campaign all around, had more charisma, and had more crossover appeal to other demographics. Hillary was called "too left" and Obama did not run on a platform of extreme liberalism.

3) Bernie supported intervention in Libya. And it was the right call

4) She supports just like Sanders a multilateral and united plan to deal with Syria she does not support the same things Republicans want. Nor does she support nuking Iran. Although, personally I think the Iran deal will blow up in our face later.



It was.

Libya was a human rights concern which is why France, Canada, the UK and even other EU nations got on board. You mean to tell me that "big bad evil America' somehow convinced them all to do/go against their own interests? Libya was a multilateral intervention with UN security council approval (narrow but still) and got the support of most of the free thinking world. It was completely different than Iraq in which not even NATO was on board and which Bush told France to f#ck off and the UN and invaded anyways.

If human rights was the crux of the concern, the Saudis would be ousted long before Gaddafi, and that doesn't even make mention of the coup on Chavez, which was solely US-supported. The difference is that the Saudis are still whoring out their oil and Gaddafi was on the way to closing Libya's legs to NATO members. It wasn't against their interests: it was just largely a matter of resource appropriation.

Sanders may have supported ousting Gaddafi-- but it certainly wasn't the right call, and it is not the first time I've disagreed with one of Bernard's policies (such as continued protection of Israel, donning North Korea as the biggest international threat (which I think is laughable), advocating for a would-be-disastrous $15-federal minimum wage, etc.)

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot that I had accidentally left out "of Chavez" in the original post.

 

[MicroBrew]

Do you find that reprehensible? I seem to remember you belonging to the "we should deal with ruthless dictators as long as they keep things 'stable'" camp. Unless I'm misremembering, that willingness to side with murderous autocrats wouldn't be a turn off, politically, to you.

You must be mistaking me with someone else as I am certainly not in that camp. I am leftist who certainly does not support the US supporting dictators.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

If human rights was the crux of the concern, the Saudis would be ousted long before Gaddafi, and that doesn't even make mention of the coup on Chavez, which was solely US-supported. The difference is that the Saudis are still whoring out their oil and Gaddafi was on the way to closing Libya's legs to NATO members. It wasn't against their interests: it was just largely a matter of resource appropriation.

Sanders may have supported ousting Gaddafi-- but it certainly wasn't the right call, and it is not the first time I've disagreed with one of Bernard's policies (such as continued protection of Israel, donning North Korea as the biggest international threat (which I think is laughable), advocating for a would-be-disastrous $15-federal minimum wage, etc.)

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot that I had accidentally left out "of Chavez" in the original post.

Its cool I figured you meant Chavez from other posts I saw.

1) I don't see the attempted 'coup' on Chavez as a super horrible thing. All nations try to advance their goals in someway. It was done for a democracy as well the people in Venezuela are oppressed. Its no worse than when communist have tried the same is it not? In any case we should not repeat those mistakes.

2) Saudi Arabia is needed for energy reasons among perhaps some others and Saudi Arabia is not doing what Gaddafi was which was massacring his own people. I do hope and look forward to the day were Saudi Arabia is dropped though.

3) Its great to hear that there is a Bernie fan out there who actually disagrees with some or many of Bernie's policies or stances. You get a gold star from me! No but really you are the first person on here I have met who likes Bernie and has been critical of him.

4) I agree with you on minimum wage. I do however, back his stance on Israel though personally I feel he is too tough on Israel he is definitely a guy who would vote Meretz if he was an Israeli. As it stands Sanders is quite liberal he says he believes in God but defines God in a very odd way. He seems like a re-constructionist/Humanistic Jew or a deistic Jew to me.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

You must be mistaking me with someone else as I am certainly not in that camp. I am leftist who certainly does not support the US supporting dictators.

Good so we need to do all that we can to get rid of Assad. Agree?

Assad needs to go.

 

[MicroBrew]

Hmm by your logic

"Bernie supports killing little children with drone strikes."
"Bernie supports the "evil zionist state" and turns a blind eye to Saudi Arabia violence"

I mean if you want me to play it that far and like an idiot I can. Just so you know by the way true socialists dislike Sanders because they claim he represents 'statism' with capitalism. Why did I mention that? Because you are starting to state the same stuff that hardcore 'socialists' and "non-interventionists" like to spew. And if that is the case then I thought id return fire with what they say about Bernie Sanders.

Or if you want to go the conspiracy route check this out it might appeal to all the infowars fans



1) Iraq was a mistake but for 100th million time I don't fault her or Joe Biden or anyone for making that vote especially when they were U.S. Senators and were shown faulty/false evidence by the Bush administration. You know that Senators meet in private with the administration and their sources right? Plus she later came out against Iraq as did Kerry.

2) Don't be ridiculous she lost 2008 because Obama ran a better campaign all around, had more charisma, and had more crossover appeal to other demographics. Hillary was called "too left" and Obama did not run on a platform of extreme liberalism.

3) Bernie supported intervention in Libya. And it was the right call

4) She supports just like Sanders a multilateral and united plan to deal with Syria she does not support the same things Republicans want. Nor does she support nuking Iran. Although, personally I think the Iran deal will blow up in our face later.



It was.

Libya was a human rights concern which is why France, Canada, the UK and even other EU nations got on board. You mean to tell me that "big bad evil America' somehow convinced them all to do/go against their own interests? Libya was a multilateral intervention with UN security council approval (narrow but still) and got the support of most of the free thinking world. It was completely different than Iraq in which not even NATO was on board and which Bush told France to f#ck off and the UN and invaded anyways.

I support drone strikes on the Taleban , ISIS Al Qaeda, Al Shabab. I've approvingly mentioned here before Obama's increased use of drone strikes against militant Islamists.

Phrasing drone strikes as "drone striking little children" is absurd since the targets aren't little children but in war sometiems innocent people do get killed.

I remember the 2008 election; Hillary lost the nomination primarily because of her Iraq war stance and that was what enamored Obama to the liberal base.

 

[MicroBrew]

Good so we need to do all that we can to get rid of Assad. Agree?

Assad needs to go.

Not supporting dictators does not equal proactively getting rid of dictators.

If the US has a plan for Syria's future to safeguard the minorities then I don't care if Assad goes but the US just wants to get rid of him without caring about the inevitable genocide that will follow. As it is Assad is the least worst option between him and the genocidal Salafists who dominate the rebel ranks.

 

[Gandhi]

Not attacking. Just pointing out that the whole "he/she doesn't have FP experience" is a disingenuous argument.

Not just the Ws. -- btw, it has recently come out that Cheney and Rumsfeld actually kept information away from W during the buildup to war.

Clinton: Rwanda, delayed support to Bosnia because of Hillarycare, sanctions on Iraq that killed 500,000 children and is cited as 1 of the 2 main reasons for 9/11 and the hatred Muslims (even non radicals) hate America.

Obama: expanded the "War on Terror", Libya, Syria, Yemen, drone strikes.

All of these guys relied on their advisors and then used their judgement to make the decisions they made.
Did JFK/RFK have FP? I don't recall that they did, but they got us thru the Cuban Missile Crisis (JFK also fucked up during the Bay O'Pigs, but still).

Ok but I still don't understand the bush comment. Walker was a much better FP president than his son and kept out of the quagmire W then got us into, he also had a Muslim alliance, etc. it's really an argument for a non idealist with experience in that limited case.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I support drone strikes on the Taleban , ISIS Al Qaeda, Al Shabab. I've approvingly mentioned here before Obama's increased use of drone strikes against militant Islamists.

Phrasing drone strikes as "drone striking little children" is absurd since the targets aren't little children but in war sometiems innocent people do get killed.

I remember the 2008 election; Hillary lost the nomination primarily because of her Iraq war stance and that was what enamored Obama to the liberal base.

Innocents will get killed unless we become complete isolationists which even Bernie is against. My point in making that was to fire back at the CT's and radicals who try and make it seem like Hillary is the evil possessed blood drawn vampire. My point is that if one behaves like @Anung Un Rama likes to do then he should also be against Bernie for supporting drone strikes and essentially the 'military industrial complex'.

Essentially I am trying to call people out on there hypocrisy of supporting Bernie drone strikes as okay or ignoring his support of that and other actions but then going full conspiracy mode and claiming Clinton wants blood and takes pleasure from harming innocents who sadly sometimes get killed by military action.

I remember Obama winning because he had a better campaign and was perceived as more 'hip'. Maybe it was just what I saw though.

Not supporting dictators does not equal proactively getting rid of dictators.

If the US has a plan for Syria's future to safeguard the minorities then I don't care if Assad goes but the US just wants to get rid of him without caring about the inevitable genocide that will follow. As it is Assad is the least worst option between him and the genocidal Salafists who dominate the rebel ranks.

It was my understanding that we do care about them. Hence the talk of taking in refugees and bringing attention to the issues.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

You must be mistaking me with someone else as I am certainly not in that camp. I am leftist who certainly does not support the US supporting dictators.

Ok, sorry then. I thought you have said we'd be better if Saddam was still in charge of Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, etc.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Ok but I still don't understand the bush comment. Walker was a much better FP president than his son and kept out of the quagmire W then got us into, he also had a Muslim alliance, etc. it's really an argument for a non idealist with experience in that limited case.

W is in a class of his own, so of course HW was better in every way.
True he lead a coalition and kept us out of the quagmire we enjoy today. I remember Cheney flip flopping on the wisdom of removing Saddam. But he was also involved in Iran-Contra, and invaded Panama. That probably had more with him being a spook than the POTUS, but still. His judgment put America at risk.

What I meant with my W comment, is that we suffered a policy coup and its come out recently that Rumsfeld deliberately withheld information from W. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530

Back to HW, none of the candidates running have a fraction of his experience or FP awareness. And, again to concede to your 1st post, Albright may be correct to point to Hillary's experience being more robust than Sanders, but its unremarkable for all but her poor judgment. So again, I think FP experience is an overrated quality and a non-factor in this election cycle. If somebody of Gen. Petraeus' stature was running it would be a different story.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Ok, sorry then. I thought you have said we'd be better if Saddam was still in charge of Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, etc.

Of course we would be, thats not even controversial and it doesn't take somebody who supports dictators to come to that conclusion.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Ok, sorry then. I thought you have said we'd be better if Saddam was still in charge of Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, etc.

Is that even a question?

I feel like most people realize now that the world was better with those two at the helm. I'm much more sympathetic to Gaddafi than Saddam, but it was still foreseeable that ousting the latter would create a vacuum like the one that has since given us the likes of ISIS.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Of course we would be, thats not even controversial and it doesn't take somebody who supports dictators to come to that conclusion.

The guy I quoted criticized Hillary by saying she'd deal with terrible people like Lil Kim or Baghdadi if it'd further her career. Then he said of course he doesn't support dictators. So I'm asking how can someone criticize Hillary for being the type to deal with dictators like Lil Kim--and by extension Saddam or Gaddafi--but then also say the world is better with them in power? It seems that one should choose one POV or the other: You either loathe dictators and the people that'd do deals with them like Shillary, or you go full realpolitik and say fuck it, they're a necessary evil and I support the future Pres. Clinton in her dealings with them if it keeps the status quo rolling.

Is that even a question?

I feel like most people realize now that the world was better with those two at the helm. I'm much more sympathetic to Gaddafi than Saddam, but it was still foreseeable that ousting the latter would create a vacuum like the one that has since given us the likes of ISIS.

Of course you're more sympathetic to Brother #1 Gaddafi. You were never thrown in a gulag and tortured for the rest of your short life just for daring to have ties to someone who may have voiced an unflattering opinion of the Dear Leader.

A vacuum was forming in Iraq sooner or later. Dubya just took the incentive to get in there before it formed naturally. Iraq was tearing at the seams before the invasion.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

The guy I quoted criticized Hillary by saying she'd deal with terrible people like Lil Kim or Baghdadi if it'd further her career. Then he said of course he doesn't support dictators. So I'm asking how can someone criticize Hillary for being the type to deal with dictators like Lil Kim--and by extension Saddam or Gaddafi--but then also say the world is better with them in power? It seems that one should choose one POV or the other: You either loathe dictators and the people that'd do deals with them like Shillary, or you go full realpolitik and say fuck it, they're a necessary evil and I support the future Pres. Clinton in her dealings with them if it keeps the status quo rolling.

Well its one thing to represent the USA and speak with our enemies to work toward peace, or at least stability.
Its another thing to work with dispicable people, as a representative of the USA, for personal gain.
Hillary is more likely to to the latter than the former.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Well its one thing to represent the USA and speak with our enemies to work toward peace, or at least stability.
Its another thing to work with dispicable people, as a representative of the USA, for personal gain.
Hillary is more likely to to the latter than the former.

Well assuming Hillary's paramount personal interest is becoming POTUS, and I hardly see how dealing with Kim Jong Un and his ilk would help her attain that office. Given those two points, I assumed his post presupposed Hillary was already President and dealing with dictator scumbags, in which case I don't see how you can really separate personal gain from legitimate statesmanship, since most Presidents' greed in office is for power and a positive legacy and not petty ephemeral things like money. With that said, what are you imagining Hillary doing as President that would only profit her personal interests by dealing with dictators and not the country? How do you tease that out of her actions?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Well assuming Hillary's paramount personal interest is becoming POTUS, and I hardly see how dealing with Kim Jong Un and his ilk would help her attain that office. Given those two points, I assumed his post presupposed Hillary was already President and dealing with dictator scumbags, in which case I don't see how you can really separate personal gain from legitimate statesmanship, since most Presidents' greed in office is for power and a positive legacy and not petty ephemeral things like money. With that said, what are you imagining Hillary doing as President that would only profit her personal interests by dealing with dictators and not the country? How do you tease that out of her actions?

I'm not imagining anything, I'm providing context to your reply concerning your convo w/ Microbrew, but if you look into Bill's campaign finance shenanigans during his presidency, you would get an idea of what Hillary might do.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

I'm not imagining anything, I'm providing context to your reply concerning your convo w/ Microbrew, but if you look into Bill's campaign finance shenanigans during his presidency, you would get an idea of what Hillary might do.

Don't be fatuous. You are imagining. Hillary is not President. If you're assuming she's going to certain things as President, then you're using your imagination. So what are these things she's going to do that will personally enrich her via dealings with dictators that you can prove weren't done to further the USA's geopolitical goals?

 

[MicroBrew]

Innocents will get killed unless we become complete isolationists which even Bernie is against. My point in making that was to fire back at the CT's and radicals who try and make it seem like Hillary is the evil possessed blood drawn vampire. My point is that if one behaves like @Anung Un Rama likes to do then he should also be against Bernie for supporting drone strikes and essentially the 'military industrial complex'.

Essentially I am trying to call people out on there hypocrisy of supporting Bernie drone strikes as okay or ignoring his support of that and other actions but then going full conspiracy mode and claiming Clinton wants blood and takes pleasure from harming innocents who sadly sometimes get killed by military action.

I remember Obama winning because he had a better campaign and was perceived as more 'hip'. Maybe it was just what I saw though.




It was my understanding that we do care about them. Hence the talk of taking in refugees and bringing attention to the issues.

So are you saying you are for intervention on humanitarian grounds?

There is no hypocrisy in supporting some military action and not others, because each war is different in its justification and rationale. In Iraq, the war was waged on a lie but in Af-Pak the war was retaliation for 9-11. One can be for the Af-Pak war but not for the Iraq war.

If the Western establishment cared soo much they would not have supported the sanctions against Iraq or support Saudi Arabia. Refugees are being allowed in is because of PR pressure and pressure from the MidEast allies and partly pressure from humanitarian orgs. A few decent politicians do care but overall Western foreign policy is hardly about caring.