Throughout the campaign, Hillary Clinton has pledged to ramp up U.S. action not only to fight the Islamic State, but also to end the Syrian civil war. If she does what she’s promising, the risky effort could engulf the first year of her presidency and test the limits of the United States’ reduced influence in the region. The question is whether she will follow through...
...Listening to Clinton’s own pledges to create safe zones inside Syria, increase pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and boost support to the armed opposition, one might conclude that those around her who advocate for a more aggressive approach are set to win the day. But after the election, Clinton will be forced to confront the risks and challenges of those policies.
Clinton acknowledged in 2013 remarks released by WikiLeaks that establishing a no-fly zone and taking down Syrian air defenses means “you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.” The U.S. military remains wary of such an intervention. The moderate opposition she hopes to bolster may have lost Aleppo by the time she takes office. And by then the battle against the Islamic State in Raqqa may be raging, demanding the bulk of U.S. attention.
WNU Editor: If she pursues the policy that she has been advocating on the campaign trail .... no fly zones, taking down Syrian air defenses, increasing support to Syrian rebel groups, etc. .... I can see a situation where U.S. and Russia military forces will be firing at each other. As to the question .... will she actually implement such a radical change in U.S. policy .... I take her on her word that she will do it .... and quickly (i.e. within six months).
What makes you think she'd actually do some of the things she's promised on the campaign trail? She's good at making promises in public to get as many votes as possible, but tends to be bad at keeping them once in private, especially when those former promises don't fit her big private donor's wishes or agendas. Besides, women don't have a lot of testosterone.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
tunnelcat wrote:What makes you think she'd actually do some of the things she's promised on the campaign trail? She's good at making promises in public to get as many votes as possible, but tends to be bad at keeping them once in private, especially when those former promises don't fit her big private donor's wishes or agendas. Besides, women don't have a lot of testosterone.
TC...you know very well that testosterone isn't needed to do some pretty violent stuff.
Joking aside, Obama has set us upon a very dangerous path. Hillary will try to continue that path.
. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"- Mao Zedong
tunnelcat wrote:What makes you think she'd actually do some of the things she's promised on the campaign trail? She's good at making promises in public to get as many votes as possible, but tends to be bad at keeping them once in private, especially when those former promises don't fit her big private donor's wishes or agendas. Besides, women don't have a lot of testosterone.
TC...you know very well that testosterone isn't needed to do some pretty violent stuff.
Trust me, testosterone IS required for irrational unreasonable anger. Estrogen is the direct opposite. It pacifies and calms. How else do mothers put up with their kids? But I will agree that a post-menopausal women who is testosterone dominant can get into a snit fit when it suits her. But since Hillary looks fat, she's probably very estrogen dominant. Why else do you think she's so calm under the withering ire of Trump? Anyone with even half a load of testosterone would have lost it and decked Trump during that second debate in a heartbeat.
Now Trump has demonstrated a distinct lack of patience, a very thin skin that bruises easily, the tendency to lie in the face of the truth, an ego the size of the moon, psychopathic tendencies towards others he dislikes and a narcissistic streak a mile long. He has the exact same traits and hallmarks of a despot such as Kim Jong-un. By the way, hasn't it been the Republicans who've been harping about Obama not going after Assad for crossing that imaginary red line? Aren't they the war-hawks?
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
we're being asked by NS to accept the keen analysis of a 'Russian ex-pat blogger', ie-Sigma or the like. I'll pass, thanks. You, Nightshade, can return to your usual fetal position hiding under your bed.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
