And if he thinks that, he’s not too far wrong, either. But the Pubs will never admit it. They’ve been binging on irrational Hillary-hate since 1992, they’re not about to become rational on the subject now.
You forget she has Libya on her record now. Same lack of planning for what came after. Will she make the mistake a third time?
No dead soldiers. That’s an enormous difference that you always ignore.
Is equating Iraq and Libya some new republican talking point? Because it’s funny as hell. Not even the lobotomized could take it seriously.
You guys really should be Trump voters. “The US made out okay, that’s all that matters” is not what a Clinton voter would be saying.
Yeah, a Trump or Cruz in office is almost a guarantee of another large scale war. With Clinton, her hawkishness doesn’t mean she’ll be lobbing bombs at Iran or NK or Syria on day 2 of her presidency. I’m fine with what Obama has done, even though some have been mistakes. If Clinton’s a little more hawkish than Obama, then that’s well within my acceptable range.
Libya was a just conflict, we should have taken out Gaddaffi years ago. Its funny to hear Republicans clamor about Clinton’s stances because the GOP has never met a war they didn’t like. As far as I’m concerned, no Republican has the authority to critize Clinton on anything remotely to do with the military. They’re the ones who like to counter with “So you think Saddam didn’t deserve to be taken out?” when you question them on the mistakes of the Iraq war. They made a huge mistake and deserve to suffer politically for it.
With Clinton, she’ll be like Obama’s third term. Under Obama we stopped torture and black sites, drawn down the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, bombed some places with drones without exposing American soldiers at risk, and only used very limited special forces and military support in places that we didn’t want to send an army to. I’m happy Clinton would continue that
That’s quite an assumption. I agree that Clinton is unlikely to commit massive numbers of US troops, but under the past two Democratic administrations, standoff weapons have been used VERY liberally, and it’s far from certain that this is a wise policy. It’s an attempt to wage lots of wars without cost, and the most insane part is that many Democrats don’t actually think that lobbing bombs and missiles at people is even a war.
You’re right, taking out Qaddafi was a good thing. It’s just not clear that the way we took out Qaddafi was superior to the way we took out Saddam. In the short term, sure, we lost less people and spent less money. In the long term, we might have more problems than if we’d just occupied the place.
The other problem is what happens when your bombs and missiles don’t get the job done. Do you just say, “Oh well, we tried, guess we lost the war, everybody go shopping. Oh damn, the mall got blowed up, that sucks. Oh well, it’s our new reality since the bombing didn’t work.”
There are more issues than one, and it’s not like Trump’s position on this is coherent anyway.
But yes, the US making it out okay is my biggest concern. I’m amazed if it’s not yours.
This is an utterly ridiculous assertion. It’s impossible to take anything like this seriously.
There are more than one Republican president with Khadafy on his record. It used to be accepted, even by you, that he was a Bad Guy who needed to be gotten rid of. Remember that? I know you do. So what changed for you, other than party identification?
Extremists now have a ton of options for setting up terrorist states. Long term, that might be a bigger problem than anything we’ve seen so far. If you’ll recall, just one(Afghanistan) was bad enough.
Yes, but it still wasn’t nearly as bad as the Iraq war.
You’re citing a pretty short history there, and ignoring that terrorist incidents in the West seem to be increasing. We have no idea how far ISIS can ramp up a terror campaign.
They haven’t come close to a miniscule fraction of the damage that the Iraq war did. A terrorist mass shooting in America every single day for a year might come close.
The war in Iraq did about as much damage as 9/11 in terms of deaths and cost.
It did way more damage – 9/11 didn’t hurt our worldwide image at all (and probably helped due to sympathy), while the Iraq war obliterated it. The Iraq war also killed a ton more people (significantly more Americans and way more non-Americans) and cost way, way more money.
We’ve been through this before. Our unwillingness to fight face to face and our use of standoff weapons was used as propaganda to portray as cowardly and weak.
IOW, a Democrat did it. Yes, we’ve been through this before with you - many times, on many subjects.
Odd how a Democrat doing it doesn’t help you applaud the killing of Bin Laden.
Our enemies will propagandize us no matter what we do. But it’s far more effective when tens of thousands of Muslims are being killed, as in the Iraq war, then when dozens are being killed by drones. The Iraq war was much, much worse in every way than Libya, including the possibility of propaganda.