Hillary’s Hawkish Side Won’t Win Over Progressives

[GoLeft TV]

Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy proposals have come into question following the terrorist attacks in Paris, and most progressives are uneasy about her hawkish ways. Would a Hillary presidency mirror that of a Republican in terms of war?

Ring of Fire’s Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss this.

[NYCButterfinger]

1. I think it is most progressives have to come to reality

That Americans don't trust progressives to lead foreign policy. People right now think that progressives are weak and love to much peace. Peace does not get you anywhere either.

[passiveporcupine]

12. Peace does not get you anywhere either.

OMG, you owe me a keyboard.

[upaloopa]

2. Ring of Fire is going to need a new topic

to raise revenue after Hillary wins the primary.

I had to turn both them and Thom Hartman off until the a Primary is over. At that time they will be praising Hillary over the repub

BTW Ring of Fire doesn't speak for all progressives

You can see that in the polls

[Thinkingabout]

3. What is going to happen to Sanders hawkish side, is it going to win progressives?

He has voted more times for military action than Clinton, that would make Sanders more hawkish.

[redstateblues]

5. kind of odd for a Conscientious Objector

[Thinkingabout]

6. Interesting, huh, he only meant himself on being a CO.

[DhhD]

8. Sanders does have to support the boots on the ground that Clinton gave Bush permission to send.

And now Sanders is having to support all the bandaids that are needed after the 2003 beginning blunders, made possible by Clinton's vote and others who wanted to privatize Iraqi Oil.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Damn, what happened when he voted before Hillary Clinton was in Congress

Did he use ESP to make his decisions for military action?

[tecelote]

9. "He has voted more times for military action than Clinton..."

How do you figure?

[MisterP]

4. nor will it attract any Pubs--especially since Trump is popular not just because he says

"blow them up! and their dog too!" but is blowing economic populist dogwhistles (racist "producerism&quot to an audience that's faced the repo man

[Spitfire of ATJ]

7. She's trying to win over that vast "middle" that never existed.

[Zoftig1]

11. Hillary

The legendary masochism of the Democratic Party rears its ugly head. If they insist on Hillary, they deserve to lose.

[vt_native]

13. Pap, what's wrong with Birkenstocks?

I don't care for HRC, but I love my Birks!

[Ford_Prefect]

14. Who is going to pay the cost of her adventurism? Veterans and their families know.

So do taxpayers and communities burdened with a moribund economy and staggering debt. Likewise several million people caught in the meat grinder of the Syrian civil war and its violent overflow.

But hey, lets be realistic. Wars happen and innocents die in them. Taxes are paid to make sure we don't die here, regardless of where "there" happens to be. Veterans and their families knew what they signed up for long before any bullets flew. It's the price of freedom, isn't it?

Or is it?

What are the alternatives?

Isn't that what genuine leadership and functional diplomacy are supposed to be about?

Or could it also be about the bottom line for Lockheed Martin, Boeing and the other purveyors of mass destruction systems on a convenient payment schedule?

Things that make you go "Hmmmm?"

[Laser102]

15. Guess I'm not progressive enough to feel all you need is love to stop the radicals of the world.

America will never vote for someone they perceive as soft or weak. Not with San Bernardino,Paris, Colorado, and unfortunately on and on. I have surprised myself with these feelings since I came of age during Vietnam and have always been opposed to war. This is a new enemy. We aren't fighting a country this time. We are fighting a horrible ideology that means to kill us.

[Ford_Prefect]

16. The horrible ideology of fear has already arrived here. Trump is its most visible advocate.

"The only thing we have to fear is Fear itself". When we respond to dangerous and difficult situations out of fear we cut our own throats.

A wider more violent response to the horrible ideology is what ISIL are planning on.

Nicolas Henin, who was held captive for 10 months, described the strikes as a "trap" which is designed to force local people into the arms of ISIL as a protector.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/former_hostage_airstrikes_agai.html
More than 10 years of military campaigns in Iraq helped to generate ISIL. It seems unlikely to end it now.

There are other avenues of response more likely to stop ISIL. One is to starve its income. ISIL pretends to be an ideology but it functions more like a criminal gang and requires large amounts of cash to operate.Turkey has repeatedly refused to close their border to oil, antiquities other materials sold by ISIL to fund their activities. It has been alleged that a son of the Turkish president is profiteering hugely by facilitating this kind of trading activity. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have never admitted to their financial enabling of ISIL which continues as we speak.
Until "we" take on this level of action all others will likely fail. If bombing alone worked so effectively against ISIL it would have been done before now.

As far as attacks like those in San Bernardino, Paris and elsewhere it is sad testimony to the conditions here and there that racial and class hatreds can lead to such infamy. I don't excuse them by saying so. The ever increasing numbers of dead every day in America sadly reflect the degree to which class hatred has been empowered by demagogues like Trump, Beck and others less visible like Rove, Allies and Murdoch.

When we do not question the assumptions placed before us we empower the very fear they depend on. We should be listening to those who are asking the difficult questions. That is the response of the free and the brave. Not the tyranny of fear and anger.