Hillary is an unrestrained warmonger

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't see how wanting to protect our country (and other countries) from terrorism makes one an "unrestrained warmonger." The thing that most of the so-called "True Progressives" on this forum can't seem to understand is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. When you second-guess a terrorist, that's how innocent lives are lost. Hillary understands this, having watched her constituents attacked on September 11, 2001. Hillary knows that diplomacy is the best policy for negotiating in foreign affairs and understands that war should always be the last option. She has the knowledge and experience to truly understand how the world works having visited over 150 countries during her tenure at Secretary of State. I would trust her more on foreign policy than I would any alleged "dove."

what?

[CountryClassSF]

I don't see how wanting to protect our country (and other countries) from terrorism makes one an "unrestrained warmonger." The thing that most of the so-called "True Progressives" on this forum can't seem to understand is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. When you second-guess a terrorist, that's how innocent lives are lost. Hillary understands this, having watched her constituents attacked on September 11, 2001. Hillary knows that diplomacy is the best policy for negotiating in foreign affairs and understands that war should always be the last option. She has the knowledge and experience to truly understand how the world works having visited over 150 countries during her tenure at Secretary of State. I would trust her more on foreign policy than I would any alleged "dove."

what?

What did he say that wasn't clear? He clearly separated terrorists vs routine foreign affairs. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Breaking foreign policy into pro-war vs. anti-war is extremely stupid, lazy thinking.  There's basically two types of tired logic at work here.  On one hand, there are extremely provincial types who think America is not on the same planet as the rest of the world.  On the other hand, there are leftists who think everything ever is a reaction to American "imperialism" and if only we were nice and friendly, the world would become some sort of paradise. 

The unfortunate truth is that there is no easy way to decide on foreign policy.  There are some obviously idiotic decisions like the Iraq War, but most decisions are in that gray area.  If you look at world politics in this naive, black and white way, you're basically just being a dumb-dumb.  The basis of any reasoned opinion on foreign policy is actually a deep understanding of the international scene.  That actually requires learning and reading, rather than trying to fit the headline news of the moment into your narrative of domestic politics, whether that is "Obama is weak" or "Obama is a warmonger."

Obama is probably the least warmongering President we've had or will have for a while. But he's certainly not weak on military use. For example, the Libya intervention, going after ISIS in Iraq, almost getting us in Syria, and killing Bin Laden. He just is "against dumb wars"  and doesn't like to do "stupid stuff".

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't see how wanting to protect our country (and other countries) from terrorism makes one an "unrestrained warmonger." The thing that most of the so-called "True Progressives" on this forum can't seem to understand is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. When you second-guess a terrorist, that's how innocent lives are lost. Hillary understands this, having watched her constituents attacked on September 11, 2001. Hillary knows that diplomacy is the best policy for negotiating in foreign affairs and understands that war should always be the last option. She has the knowledge and experience to truly understand how the world works having visited over 150 countries during her tenure at Secretary of State. I would trust her more on foreign policy than I would any alleged "dove."

what?

What did he say that wasn't clear? He clearly separated terrorists vs routine foreign affairs. 

It's not clear for one thing what it means that dipolmacy is the best policy for negotiating.  Is there a kind of negotiation in foreign affairs that doesn't involve diplomacy?  More substantially, dealing with terrorism is routine at this point.  The possibility of a war that is not a response to terrorism or the perceived threat of terrorism has for a while now been the exception rather than the rule when it comes to U.S. foreign policy.  If we can't negotiate with terrorists (a very broad category) that constrains policy a great deal and does not in any way make war a matter of last resort.

[CountryClassSF]

I just don't understand why so many libs are hatin' on Hillary Clinton.  Is it because she aint black? She aint rich?  She aint privileged? Is it white people libs have a problem with?

By the way, that's a little bit of a parody of a Jeremiah Wright quote, obviously. I'm just flabbergasted at the liberal vitriol directed at Hillary.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I just don't understand why so many libs are hatin' on Hillary Clinton.  Is it because she aint black? She aint rich?  She aint privileged? Is it white people libs have a problem with?

By the way, that's a little bit of a parody of a Jeremiah Wright quote, obviously. I'm just flabbergasted at the liberal vitriol directed at Hillary.

It actually isn't obvious that you were referencing a Jeremiah Wright quote since no one outside of the tea-party crowd has cared about the stuff with Wright since Obama gave his speech in response to the initial controversy back in 2008.  That speech was easily Obama's finest hour, btw.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't see how wanting to protect our country (and other countries) from terrorism makes one an "unrestrained warmonger." The thing that most of the so-called "True Progressives" on this forum can't seem to understand is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. When you second-guess a terrorist, that's how innocent lives are lost. Hillary understands this, having watched her constituents attacked on September 11, 2001. Hillary knows that diplomacy is the best policy for negotiating in foreign affairs and understands that war should always be the last option. She has the knowledge and experience to truly understand how the world works having visited over 150 countries during her tenure at Secretary of State. I would trust her more on foreign policy than I would any alleged "dove."

what?

What did he say that wasn't clear? He clearly separated terrorists vs routine foreign affairs.  

It's not clear for one thing what it means that diplomacy is the best policy for negotiating.  Is there a kind of negotiation in foreign affairs that doesn't involve diplomacy?  More substantially, dealing with terrorism is routine at this point.  The possibility of a war that is not a response to terrorism or the perceived threat of terrorism has for a while now been the exception rather than the rule when it comes to U.S. foreign policy.  If we can't negotiate with terrorists (a very broad category) that constrains policy a great deal and does not in any way make war a matter of last resort.

Of course, "war" is a broad category too. Gone are the Cold War days of having the resources and the domestic political will to mobilize many hundreds of thousands of troops (to be sent nearly anywhere in the world, potentially). America simply has neither the resources/power nor the public will to fight in large-scale conflicts anymore, certainly not nearly to the extent it did even 20 years ago (let alone 50...)

On the other hand, a policy of strict non-interventionism in foreign conflicts is also a non-starter, because 1) the United States as a country has many, many interests around the world; 2) American withdrawal from the rest of the world would have all kinds of negative, unintended consequences, and 3) the American public may not (generally speaking) have the stomach for war in 2014, but they still want their leaders in government to "do something" about horrific situations in the rest of the word where huge numbers of people are suffering as a result of war, genocide, terrorism, famine, disease, and any other humanitarian catastrophe.

Which brings us back to your point, shua, about how the US government, as official policy (of course this policy is disregarded at times...) does not negotiate with terrorists. Additional diplomacy in response to terrorist groups is thus, also a non-starter. We aren't going to send hundreds of thousands of troops into every country that harbors terrorists (taken to the broader level, the US and the UK "harbor" terrorists too! ), we aren't going to negotiate with ISIS or similar groups, we certainly aren't going to sit on our hands and do nothing, so....what options does Obama, or any potential President of any party (whether it be Hillary Clinton or anyone else) , have?