Does ANYBODY here think HRC's talk of "smart interventions" is a good thing?

[Ken Burch]

Can't we at least agree that, as far as the Middle East is concerned, the only sensible American policy is staying the hell out?

Clearly, if our interventions brought nothing to positive to Iran in the past, that's proof enough that we can never bring that country anything positive.

HRC desperately needs to be stopped from getting us into any wars, since any war the US gets into again(other than defending our own territory)would have to be right-wing, pointless and unwinnable. We don't need the second coming of Dean Rusk and Scoop Jackson, people.

World War II was the last overseas American war in history that non-conservatives could support with a clear conscience.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. The right wing israelis who bought and paid for Hillary's primary will get their money's worth.

And the rest of us will suffer for it :evilfrown:

[PBS Poll-435]

4. OMG

[Ken Burch]

30. He was just talking about the AIPAC crowd.

The "Pro-Israel" lobby has been leading the fight against peace, because it's anti-peace to be against a Palestinian state.

[PBS Poll-435]

33. Wow

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

[Ken Burch]

39. That's what the continued settlement construction was about

It was about preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state. Those settlers are against peace. They just want the "fight for survival" myth to go on forever. And Likud backs them because it knows it can only get elected if the conflict goes on.

The settlers and the Likudniks are the true enemies of Israel.

[Captain Hilts]

12. An ignorant statement. nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. Really now?

Why don't you look up Haim Saban, for example. An Israeli citizen and a right winger who decribes himself as "to the right of Lieberman" when it comes to Israel vs. the Palestinians.

Oh yeah, that's extremist Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman, not Holy Joe. I don't know if they're related, but Avi makes Joe look Liberal, if that's any indication of how extreme he is. So a guy to the right of that funded Hillary.

Is that OK with you? It scares the fucking shit out of me.

[PBS Poll-435]

22. Ah....the ol' "Guilt by Association" meme

I see where you are going with this...


:puke:

[Ken Burch]

25. Is that the Saban that produced the "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" series?

[PBS Poll-435]

26. Yep

And distributed X-Men: The Animated Series (plus many, many others) in the US.

[Fearless]

38. Just remind him that the red ranger is a porn star now.

That'll be enough to blow that fundie's head apart.

[Occam Bandage]

29. After all, if an Israeli citizen sends you some money, that means you need to invade Iran.

Damn Jews and their money. :crazy:

[Ken Burch]

32. IT's "Israelis"...not Jews. Questioning the role of Israeli hawks is not antisemitic.

A lot of decent Israeli Jews do it, and so do a growing number of American Jews, all of whom I salute for their courage, and for their support, in contrast to the Israeli hawks, of peace.

And may I assume you'd agree it would be an act of unconscionable evil for the US to bomb Iran, since we couldn't do it without inflicting massive civilian casualties?

[Occam Bandage]

44. I believe overinflating the role of individual wealthy Israelis can have anti-semitic undertones.

When people want to point out the problem with foreign donations, they very often latch on to one wealthy Jew or Muslim and present him as a symbol of malign influence. There is a long and unfortunate history of portraying Semitic people, Jew and Arab, as corrupt, wealthy influence peddlers. I think that using a single Israeli as a stand-in for undue foreign influence is no different from using a single black criminal as a stand-in for violent crime--and suggesting that single Israeli has purchased American foreign policy is more clear still. Both can be defended, but yet both appeal to dark stereotypes as much as they do to a problematic reality.

As for your question regarding Iran? I would. I'd even regard it as in act of great evil if not a single civilian were killed, simply because of the radicalizing effect it would have on Iranian and Middle Eastern politics. I'd even be against a strike if it were the difference between a nuclear and a non-nuclear Iran, and there would be no deaths whatsoever. I believe a moderate nuclear-armed Iran is safer than a radical non-nuclear Iran.

[Ken Burch]

46. I'm glad you agree with me on Iran.

I sincerely do not believe that there was any antisemitic intent in Sebastian's posts. And a lot of Israelis would object to the intervention of Mr. Saban in the U.S. electoral process, as far as that goes.

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. Get out of here with the PSU broadbrushes. Nobody said anything about "Jews"

This is a right wing foreign national trying to influence our foreign policy. I could care less which foreign nation he's from, or where he hangs out on Saturday. If he was one of Hillary's other buddies from Punjab, or Bill's Saudi friends it would be just as wrong. But in this case, Hillary has already made it clear that she'll swallow whatever crap comes out of Tel Aviv and has made comments about "obliterating Iran" even AFTER it was firmly established that they did NOT have any capabilities of nuclear weapons in the near future.

[WinkyDink]

77. Penn State what? That's the only PSU I know!

[Sebastian Doyle]

82. If you don't know what I mean by "PSU", consider yourself fortunate

There's some folks over there who rival RimJob's Digital Trailer Park in the Insanity Olympics.

[JohnnyLib2]

24. UGH

[Zynx]

88. I don't know why a statement like this is not purged from DU.

[Sebastian Doyle]

90. Because it's the truth?

:shrug:

[Zynx]

91. No, no it isn't.

It's a statement with disturbing undertones and like most statements of its kind is not supported by hard facts.

[Sebastian Doyle]

93. Disturbing undertones?

You know what I find disturbing? Foreign nationals buying influence in the US government. And it don't matter if they're Israelis, Saudis, Indians, Chinese, or Martians, it's FUCKING WRONG.

[Zynx]

95. You pretend as though they have some sort of control over the incoming administration.

They don't.

[Sebastian Doyle]

96. Right....

And Monsanto won't have any influence on what Ballsack does either. :eyes:

[harun]

97. 100% Truth, that's why.

[babylonsister]

2. Let's try diplomacy, which is what she's talking about. That's a smart

intervention.

And FTR, Clinton is not about to get us into any war.

[billyoc]

5. Bookmarked.

[Occam Bandage]

18. I have never once, ever, seen anyone later post a "bookmarked" prediction

that was not a primary-night premature celebration. But yet I see "bookmarked" all the time. I don't even know why people pretend.

[Ken Burch]

45. I'm for diplomacy, and for compromise between nations.

n/t.

[babylonsister]

54. If you are, then why the flamebait in the OP? nt

[mtnsnake]

3. You're worrying too much, Ken. The Goddess of Peace will do what's best for the sake of the world

That's why Obama chose her. :smoke:

[babylonsister]

7. Oh, shit.

:rofl: It's alive!

[mtnsnake]

10. Let the good times roll, sis!

yeah baby!!

[Clio the Leo]

6. How exactly do you propose that we "stay the Hell out?"

Do you think they'll forget about us?

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Depends on who you mean by "they"

If you mean the fictional worldwide terraist boogeymen, then I guess they could show up where ever they please, just like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, liberals in the DLC, and other purely fictional beings do.

If you mean the people in the Muslim countries who are genuinely pissed off at the United States because of CIA manipulation, corporate exploitation, and more recently, invasion and occupation, odds are they will hate us less if we leave them the fuck alone.

People here don't hate the Germans and the Japanese anymore, do they? Hell, half of us drive their cars. All of us own their electronics.

[Clio the Leo]

20. I'm all for "leaving them alone" but....

.... what do we do when Israel texts us to say, "why aren't you returning any of my calls? Don't you love me any more?"

It's the proverbial rock and a hard place and considering that WE had a major hand in putting the rock there I dont think we can just be like, "well, see you all later, we're gonna go back home now and make better hybrids."

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. Israel can't keep starting this shit and expect us to bail them out.

As far as I know, they still have legitimate elections over there, so they don't have any excuse for putting warmongers in charge of the country.

[Clio the Leo]

34. I'm not saying bail them out....

.... I'm saying we can't just walk away from the whole situation. (If that is what the OP meant.)

[Ken Burch]

42. Well, clearly our only role, from here on in, should be through pure diplomacy

and the provision of reconstruction aid.

It can never again be morally acceptable for us to threaten to wipe out Iran our any other country there. The "Cuban Missile Crisis" model was always a disaster, and nearly got the planet destroyed over nothing.

We should also return control of the Iraqi oil distribution network to the Iraqi people, from whom the Bush administration stole in in the legislation it forced the Iraqi "Parliament" to pass.

[Clio the Leo]

53. I'll take it! NT

[Ken Burch]

13. Well, ending the threats to vaporize Iran, for one thing.

We all know that no good could ever come of a U.S. intervention to overthrow the Iranian government. We especially all know that it couldn't lead to the Iranian people getting better leaders. If the U.S. has never allowed Iran to have the leaders it wanted in the past, it will always refuse to allow it.

[rwheeler31]

8. Poverty deal with it.

[Ken Burch]

16. Are you saying the US should deal with poverty in the world?

Well, yes, it should. And it should do so without insisting on US corporations getting to make money out of ending poverty.

[Jennicut]

9. Hillary may be the next SoS but last time checked Obama will be president

and she emphasized diplomacy.

[Ken Burch]

14. Well, he'll have to keep an eye on her at all times.

I know she'll try to get in touch with her inner Madeline Albright. And we all know how well it went when Maddie bombed the shit out of the Balkans.

[Occam Bandage]

17. "Hillary? Where did all my tanks go?"

"Hush, Barack. I'm just borrowing them for a little bit."

[Metric System]

35. lol

[Jennicut]

41. uh oh

[Metric System]

50. uh oh, huh?

[Jennicut]

52. Sorry, I was laughing at Occam's post about Hillary borrowing the tanks

That would be funny. Somehow, I ended up on your post. Sorry! Please forgive me?

[Metric System]

64. Ah, ok. No problem.

[Jennicut]

31. Well,there WAS slaughtering of people going on

Just like in Gaza. Air strikes were what Bill Clinton did through NATO, not full ground troops and full occupation of a country. And he had to be talked into the air strikes in the Balkans. There is a huge difference between getting involved based on a humanitarian crisis vs getting involved to take over a country's regime and occupy it.

[Beacool]

63. Yeah, she might just lead a coup and depose Obama

like some Latin American military junta.

:eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

15. I do. I believe that Kosovo was the right thing to do.

If a similar situation arises, I would support limited military intervention with clear victory conditions, clear civilian safeguards, and a clear exit strategy.

[Jennicut]

37. Me too. It eventually led to Milosevic being forced out of Kosovo

I only support limited clear intervention of humanitarian need and of course if we were ever attacked by a military on our land. Some people dislike any use of the military at all and I do understand that but if countries had acted sooner on Hitler maybe he would not have done so much damage. In the middle east, however, any intervention just fuels the fires of hatred on all sides. Not sure what to do with Israel/Gaza. Cutting off Israel's aid is a start but not sure if that would ever happen.

[Occam Bandage]

49. I agree that cutting off Israeli aid would be the absolute best thing we could do for peace,

so long as there is list of conditions for reinstating that aid.

[Ken Burch]

51. Interesting thought. What would be the particular conditions you would impose?

n/t.

[Occam Bandage]

55. Well, here's my rough plan for a two-state solution, with the conditions for Israeli aid included.

as we've learned from the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, from Cuba, from North Korea, and from Iran, it is that the absolute worst thing we can do is to completely isolate a nation. Therefore, the first condition should be a simple one. Something like, "withdraw from Gaza and allow the United States and world community to deliver humanitarian aid to Gazans."

In the mean while, the US should offer limited support for Hamas in exchange for an official declaration of Israel's right to exist. UN-brokered power-sharing talks between Hamas and Fatah might be necessary for that, unfortunately, as the PA insists that it is the only legitimate voice of Palestine and would vociferously protest anyone holding talks with Hamas, to say nothing of offering political support. We'd need to get Hamas and Fatah to agree in theory to a unity government in the future, and that would be a diplomatic coup in and of itself. Anyway, my best guess is that we ought to simply offer whatever assurances we can to Fatah leaders, while presenting Hamas with our offer.

With Hamas paying lip service to Israel's right to exist, condition number two: Israel ends the Gaza blockade. Condition number three follows: Israel enters into talks with the Palestinian Authority about a two-state plan. Hamas is informed that whatever solution the Palestinian Authority and Israel agree to are going to have the full backing of the European Union, the United States, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, and whoever we can manage to bribe into supporting us. Iran probably won't, but that's a problem for another time.

Condition four: Israel offers a return to 1967 borders, a shared Jerusalem per the Camp David accords, no general right of return, acceptance of up to 100,000 refugees on humanitarian grounds, Israeli overflight right, a Palestinian government run by the Palestinian Authority and subject to regular elections, and political support and financial aid to the Palestinian government.

Condition five: Such an agreement is signed, or if it is not signed, an effort is being continuously made in good faith by both the PA and Israel, with aid to both dependent on good faith, per the United States' judgement.

Condition six: Israel recognizes the State of Palestine.

The Gaza strip at this point most likely remains under effective control of Hamas. Hamas is told that it may at any point surrender Gaza to Palestinian control, and join Palestine with full amnesty as a legal political party. There will be great public pressure, both in Gaza, in the West Bank, and in the world community for this to happen.

Condition seven, which is ongoing and effective from the time aid is first cut off, and violation of which cuts off all aid, pro-rated, for 15 days per violation: Israel does not launch air campaigns of more than five sorties per day against any Palestinian or Lebanese territory without the prior approval of the United States government, nor does it engage in targeted assassinations of high-ranking leaders.

Condition eight, which is ongoing: Israel does not deploy soldiers beyond its 1967 borders, without the prior approval of the United States government.

It's a bit rough (I'm no expert), and I'm not sure how much aid to weight to each condition, but that's the general direction I'd like to see.

[The Bakery Wagon]

72. looks like Kosovo was a PNAC project...

So...If it was, are the goals of PNAC worthy if pursued by a Democrat, but not a (R)?

And by the way, you should take another look at that whole "war". If there were really camps full of Albanians just being held until they were gassed, why was the US bombing trains, chinese embassies, nursing homes, bridges etc? Killing to stop Killings that didn't exist in the first place. The answer lies in the PNAC page referenced. But few will read it and even fewer will understand what they've read anyway.

And since "The Next Hitler (at the time)" Milosevic has not only "been forced out of Kosovo" but is dead, and there were no concentration camps, and any imagined danger to any Albanians has been checked, why do you think that Camp Bondsteel remains?

You do know of that major military base, don't you? Google it and look at a map. Thats not a temporary base. Should Rome (ooops i mean the United States) have almost 800 bases around the world?

http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

Rambouillet Appendix B never really got press (not surprisingly)
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/appendixb.htm


We were told there were no reporters there while the US (without UN approval) bombed the hell out of that place for 78 days all the while Paul Watson was filing front page reports in the LA Times. Did you happen to read any? They were online, where I read them
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/17/news/mn-9890

[Cleita]

19. Hillary is now on the diplomatic side of interventions so I think

she is going to have to be smart no matter what.

[mtnsnake]

23. Hillary has always been a diplomat at heart. Only on DU is she perceived as anything otherwise

...well here and a few other places, too. But the lady is a peacemaker, always has been.

[Ken Burch]

27. She wasn't being pro-diplomacy when she attacked Obama

For taking the only sensible position towards Cuba and Venezuela: get the talks started.

"preconditions" is a code word for never changing the status quo position. She still thinks it would be a happy ending if Cuba went capitalist(which would mean Cuba going totally right-wing and racist again).

[Jennicut]

40. Well, when you work under someone you kind of have to blend your ideas with theirs

and Obama wants talks so Hillary needs to get to talking after the inauguration! LOL.

[Ken Burch]

43. Hopefully, she'll do it.

She needs to understand that she's not the "president of foreign policy".

It would be different if she were still the HRC of '72.

[Jennicut]

47. Yeah, hopefully she understands that.

You know I voted for Obama in the primaries. He was my guy and I disliked her immensely. I never disliked her before but she got on my nerves with her attacks on Obama. But after Sarah Palin I realized at least she is smart and competent. And her attacks only made Barack stronger. Plus she gave her support to Obama afterward. So she grew on me. She is more to the right then me but she is tough, a fighter, a strong woman. She will be much better them Rice who was a waste. We shall see.

[Ken Burch]

48. We certainly shall. Thanks for your posts in this thread.

n/t.

[Onlooker]

56. Bush's policy was to stay the hell out (except for Iraq)

Bush was criticized early in his first term for giving up the policy of engagement that had brought peace between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and others. We need to be engaged in diplomacy. At any rate, HRC speaks for the Obama administration, so if you think Obama is a warmonger, then you have a point, but I think Obama plans to exercise a level of diplomacy not seen since the Bill Clinton years.

[lurky]

57. Quick! Name a "smart" U.S. intervention!

Kosovo? :shrug:

And what does she mean by "smart", anyway?

[Occam Bandage]

59. I think cases could be made for both the Gulf War and Kosovo. Both were "smart," with

my personal definition of "smart" being:

1. International backing.
2. A clear and immediate reason to intervene.
3. Clear and attainable victory conditions.
4. Appropriate force levels.
5. A clear and attainable exit strategy, both post-victory and if victory is not achieved in any particular step of the intervention.
6. Safeguards to prevent civilian deaths (though this is always debatable).

[lurky]

61. By your definition, you may be right.

However, I'm hesitant to call Gulf I smart, since we installed and fostered the regime, then more or less encouraged him to invade Iraq. The intervention may have been smartly executed, but it was to clean up an avoidable situation caused by decades of stupid foreign policy. Like Panama.

Re: Kosovo, while it may have been necessary, I'm pretty sure it was the biggest event that sent Russia down the path of belligerent authoritarianism. Could we have done it in a way that was not threatening and humiliating to Russia?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

62. I agree that the Gulf War could have been avoided with smarter, longer-view foreign policy,

and in that regard it was certainly not "smart." As for Kosovo? I know it was threatening to Russia, though I don't know how that could have been avoided. Russia was in the post-Soviet period unable and unwilling to exert any control in what it still considered its rightful sphere of influence, and because it still considered the Balkans much as the United States considers Central America, I think that Russia would have eventually returned to its current foreign policy posture upon recovering its economy and sense of nationalism regardless of that war. I think the American intervention in Kosovo is a bit akin to the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand--sure, it ended up pulling Russia into an aggressive, belligerent posture in the Balkans, but realistically, if it wasn't that it would have been something else.

[WinkyDink]

76. Don't agree about Gulf War I. Seems to me Saddam may have been correct about Kuwait stealing his oil

[rug]

58. No more than a smart war is smarter than a dumb war.

[Undercurrent]

60. The term in use

by both Clinton, and the transition is not "smart intervention". (Don't know where this term came from, but it has a negative connotation.)

The term being used is "smart power". Smart power is a combination of “soft” power (convince and persuade) and “hard” power (coerce, and as a last resort, threats). It's similar to the carrot and stick approach, but with more emphasis on persuasion, and less to offering carrots (loans/grants, food, technological aid, etc).

[Metric System]

66. Thanks for posting. I was wondering where OP got smart intervention from when the buzz word of the

day is smart power.

[Ken Burch]

68. I stand corrected. I'd correct the OP but the arbitrary editing deadline has passed.

Still, "Smart Power" sounds like it could be a euphmemism for some things we'd all rather not see happen. It will be up to the rank-and-file to keep the pressure on to avoid "sending in the Marines" or dropping bombs on anybody.

[Undercurrent]

70. Quite alright.

The carrot and stick approach has been used by every administration in the modern era -- except Bush/Cheney -- with mixed results . Bush/Cheney used strong arm tactics as the first option -- threats, coercion, and war. With horrendous results. They let the State Department wither, while pouring money and resources into the military.

Restoring the stature of the State Department is part of the Obama plan. That's why Hillary is moving to increase Foggy Bottom's funding, and personal . Only with a robust State Department can the use of soft power, with it's heavy emphasis on diplomacy and persuasion, be an effective tool. The soft power concept relies first on diplomacy, and last on the military option.

[moriah]

65. How the hell will SHE get us into a war?

Do you honestly believe that she would be pulling Obama's strings? He will be the president, not her. Deciding whether to go to war is NOT a Secretary of State's responsibility.

If Obama wants her to achieve a diplomatic goal he sets, she had better do it. I think she will do it. And if she doesn't, Obama can very easily find another Secretary of State.

[Ken Burch]

69. Well, the Prez is Commander-in-Chief, as they say on tv.

Still, ask yourself this:

Would our party's 1960's foreign policy have been just as horrible if Adlai Stevenson had been Secretary of State as it was with Dean Rusk?

[moriah]

79. That goes back to presidents, honestly.

Kennedy resisted his advisors strongly when they urged him to get involved in a land war with Vietnam. However, it appears that if Kennedy had lived, he would have been trying to end the Vietnam war in his second term.

Rusk served both Kennedy and Johnson, but Johnson took his advice because he was worried about opinion polls, whereas Kennedy did not.

[leftstreet]

67. We aren't going to war anywhere. We don't have any soldiers

What the US has shown the world since Vietnam is that it can't 'do' war anymore and hope to 'win.' The only foreign 'intervention' the US has perfected is economic destabilization - and how's that working out?

[K Gardner]

71. HRC will be the BEST SoS we have ever had.. of that I am confident, and of her ability

to steer this country in the right direction. I felt an immense sense of pride and confidence watching her yesterday.

[DevonRex]

85. I agree completely. She rocked! And I cried with joy. nt

[wyldwolf]

73. Another "Ken Burch principles" thread.

I've noticed how odd "progressive" OPs like this get less and less RECS everyday.

[quickesst]

74. Clinton fever.....

"HRC desperately needs to be stopped from getting us into any wars,"



....still ravaging the minds of otherwise level-headed democrats under the delusion that the majority are too stupid to listen and read for themselves, and are as susceptible to simple-minded propaganda as the fans of Sarah Palin. Wish they could find a cure, but I'm not hopeful. Probably too advanced to help anyway. Sad. Thanks.
quickesst

[Marrah_G]

75. Watch out for the Mighty Clintoris, Ken!

Odd that I have more confidence in Obama's strength then you do, since you are already convinced that she is going to be in charge rather then him.

[Ken Burch]

98. This is NOT about gender. I'd say exactly the same thing if HRC was male.

n/t.

[blindpig]

78. Smarter Imperialism, that's the change I wanted....... n/t

[LaydeeBug]

80. Pssst! HRC speaks for the Obama administration.

:think:

[anonymous171]

81. I agree with you. I don't want anything to do with the crazies that live in that shithole.

Same with Africa.

[NashVegas]

83. We Have To Ween Ourselves Off Of Oil, First

Get back to me when that's accomplished, k?

[DevonRex]

84. I think it's a GREAT thing. Hillary knows what she's talking about. nt

[AtomicKitten]

86. I believe the phrase used was "smart power" -- slightly more innocuous than "smart intervention."

[dionysus]

87. i don'tt hink intervening in the ME will ever work out for us.

i doubt she'll get us into any wars, not being president and all.

[invictus]

89. K&R!

[Zynx]

92. You know, not one of these "Hillary is going to do X" fear threads has EVER been true.

Not one. I've seen hundreds of them. They have all, universally, been crap. Every single one.

[TheKentuckian]

94. Probably not. I think there is such a thing but I'm not fond of the tone

It may be necessary to hobble Iran's capability but there's little sense in saber rattling. Walk softly and carry a big stick, I sez.