?? How can a weathervane conduct foreign policy properly?

[grasswire]

Someone whose policies and stated principles change so dramatically and in such short periods of time......would that person be able to conduct the foreign policy of the world's most powerful military force?

This is a national security issue, and a serious question.

[MADem]

1. Probably better than a one-note wonder who doesn't know that Iran and Saudi Arabia are

adversaries, not allies.

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. Yes Saudi Arabia is that adversary we provide billions of $ in weapons systems each year.

They are a firmly connected US client state.

[MADem]

19. And telling them to team up with their adversary is the way to roll!

Good grief, way to miss the point.

[George II]

56. Whew...you missed the point all together.

[grasswire]

5. Would Obama call Iran our adversary now? nt

[ProgressiveCentrist]

10. Of course

hence the need for the agreement and monitoring.

If we were allies none of that would be required, we'd just shake on it.

[JaneyVee]

17. Of course.

[MADem]

18. Obama's not the King of Saudi Arabia.

Read the point I made--it's a serious one. We're not talking about who is OUR enemy, we're talking about a guy who doesn't understand geopolitical relationships between two very major players in the world and proposes childish, simplistic, frankly, idiotic "solutions" with a straight face.

It's a problem. The kind of problem that caused George Bush to not understand the challenges on the ground in Iraq, and led him and his band of mendacious morons to spend so much in treasure and blood between the Tigris and Euphrates.

And if you think "Oh, no worries, he'll get good advisers..."

That's what they said about Porgie, too.

[elias49]

39. Save the day MADem!

You probably know more than even Hillary about the Middle East, No?

[MADem]

54. I lived there for many years, but I never had the expertise of dozens of country desks at my

fingertips, or analysts to provide me with updates every time a situation arose in the region.

But you don't even need that--all you gotta do is open the newspaper to the international section and do a little reading every so often. It's possible to 'get the bubble' that way.

It bothers me that Sanders doesn't have a grasp of the basics. It reminds me of Bush, who did not know, before he started the disastrous Iraq war, that there was more than one sect of Islam, and the country he was invading was only prevented from splintering apart by the strong arm and often brutal repression of the guy in charge of the joint, and that 'democracy' couldn't start until the wrongs and abuses of decades previous were atoned for. And that "atoning" thing can take quite a while.

[George II]

60. He appears to certainly know more than the person who thinks ISIS was caused by climate change.

[George II]

58. I believe the comment was that Iran and Saudi Arabia are adversaries, no mention of the US.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. Bernie knows. He just isn't a fatalist

Which seems to be the underlying theme for Clinton's supporters.

[MADem]

23. He obviously does NOT know if he suggests that shi'a, Persian - Speaking, southwest

Asian Iran "team up" with sunni, Arabic speaking, Middle Eastern Saudi Arabia to "solve" the Syrian problem--as though they're good pals with no differences who just didn't think of that, themselves and needed the Wise Old American to clue them in. And more to the point, he spoke, with startlingly incorrect certainty, as though they've been sitting on the sidelines observing without putting their beak in to this point.

He's absolutely without any portfolio on this issue. He is beyond naive to the point of clueless on the matters at hand. He should read a newspaper before he shoots off his mouth.

When he made those unhinged remarks, it was a very frightening thing to behold--it reminded me of the way George Bush used to yammer on as a candidate about his simplistic foreign policy goals. People said "Don't worry--he'll get good advisors." We saw what he ended up with. It's not something you can take a crash course in--it's clear to me he doesn't understand the issues on the ground today and he sure as heck doesn't understand the history of the region.

And--by all accounts--he is entirely UNINTERESTED in learning.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-platform-lacking

It’s clear that Sanders would rather focus on his longtime hobby horse: political revolution and class-based economics. “I understand there are some who think that because of this attack we no longer have the capability to address the collapse of the American middle class. I disagree,” Sanders said in a speech in Cleveland on Monday night. “Our country and the world can and will defeat Isis and at the same time, we will rebuild our disappearing middle class.”

The speech, in which he called for an international effort to “eliminate the stain of Isis from this world”, was Sanders’s first in-depth effort to address the issues surrounding Paris. During the Democratic debate, just 24 hours after the attacks, Sanders spent minimal time talking about the tragedy in his opening statement before abruptly segueing to his usual campaign talking points on domestic economic populism. What’s more, a Sanders aide had actively argued with the network hosting the debate, CBS, when the moderators signaled they would lead with a discussion of the terrorist strikes.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-deficit-218431

When asked whether Sanders has a full-time campaign staffer who handles foreign policy issues, his campaign did not respond. And several people whom the Sanders campaign has cited as sources of national security advice tell POLITICO they barely know the socialist firebrand.
“Apparently I had a conversation with him last August,” said Tamara Cofman Wittes, a Brookings Institution Middle East scholar, after checking her calendar upon hearing that her name was on a list of people the Sanders campaign said he had consulted in recent months. “My vague recollection is that it was about (the Islamic State) but I don't really remember any of the details.” Wittes added that she backs Clinton.
“I don’t know how I got on Bernie Sanders’ list,” said Ray Takeyh, an Iran scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations who says he spoke to Sanders once or twice about the Iran nuclear deal at Sanders’ request in mid-2015.
With a recent NBC poll showing that only 16 percent of Democratic primary voters call foreign policy or terrorism the most important issue to them, it may be that Sanders can afford to put off the task of building his national security profile until a potential nomination — and the higher expectations of a general election — comes within closer reach. But it is an axiom of presidential politics is that candidates must pass the proverbial “commander in chief test” if they hope to be elected.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-deficit-218431#ixzz3zDYkCsJw

There's a REASON the GOP hasn't tried to ding him on these issues. And it's not because he's a powerhouse of knowledge, either--they're holding their fire in the event they need it for a general election. And he'll be annihilated.

[Motown_Johnny]

25. So what? Egypt and Israel have been at peace for over 36 years.

People thought that couldn't be done either.


Just because your fatalism tells you that something can't be done does not mean that is true.



ISIS is a common enemy of both. Not to try is to fail.

[MADem]

29. What does that have to do with what I just said?

This isn't about fatalism--it's about knowledge...or lack thereof, and a plain and stated aversion to learning.

Read the links I have offered in this conversation.

And you might want to read up on what keeps Israel and Egypt "at peace." You might be surprised to discover that it has a bit to do with The Almighty Dollar.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. It is about your conclusion and my ability to question it.

I saw that you linked to opinions which agree with yours. Nobody cares.

The effort should be made. ISIS is a common enemy of both. The idea that we should not even try to have them work together is fatalism.

[MADem]

35. No. You just completely changed the subject and expected me to not say anything about that.

It is not an "opinion" that Sanders has no interest in foreign policy. He is in his seventies and has yet to give any substantial speech or in depth observations world affairs in 33 years of public life. Aside from a trip to the Soviet Union eons ago, he doesn't have any credible foreign experience.

He doesn't make any "efforts." He offers -- when pressed -- simplistic non-solutions that are based in a firm lack of understanding. And if you don't like my sources, come up with some credible ones (not from his campaign) that demonstrate that he has a grasp of world affairs.

All this "fatalism" buzzwording can't make up for this simple fact: The guy doesn't know what he's talking about--that "Kumbayah" commentary about Iran and KSA proved it. He embarrassed himself, and he's made no effort to come up to speed on what is a POTUS's primary job.

That should be frightening to anyone who remembers the George W. Bush administration.

[Motown_Johnny]

37. It was an example of people being wrong about enemies in the middle east.

Bernie had enough interest in foreign policy to get the IWR vote right, unlike Hillary.

Hillary just gets things wrong. Lots of things. The fact that she changes positions years later does not change that.


Hillary has not backed off wanting a no fly zone in Syria. Bernie is against it. Is that the foreign policy you want?

[MADem]

46. I think you need to study that agreement closely. It had EVERYTHING to do with

--as I said and you ignored--The Almighty Dollar than any Kumbayah desire for peace. Don't believe the eighties-era propagandized Made For TV movie starring Louis Gossett, Jr. MONEY holds that peace in place--and we foot the bill.

He didn't "get the IWR vote right." His vote didn't matter. He could have stayed home. And here's the thing--HE KNEW IT. It was an opportunity to appeal to his liberal base in VT (these are the same people who are now very pissed at him for jumping into the sack with Lockheed Martin) ahead of his run for the Senate.

I want the foreign policy of a statesperson who knows the difference between Shi'a and Sunni, who understands which languages they speak in this country, or that. Who can find Pakistan or Lebanon on a map.

Sanders has not demonstrated the capability, the interest, or the effort to learn about these things, and shame on him, given he lived, albeit briefly, in the region. It's obvious in every single thing he says that touches the foreign policy sphere. He has the political sophistication of a grammar schooler, and what's scary is that he doesn't seem to care.


Like I said, he should read the paper every now and again:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/09/the-u-s-gives-egypt-1-5-billion-a-year-in-aid-heres-what-it-does/

In fiscal year 2011, the United States handed out about $49 billion in military and economic aid all told. Egypt got about $1.5 billion — the fourth-largest recipient after Israel ($3 billion), Iraq ($2.1 billion), and Pakistan ($1.7 billion).

On Egypt's end, the assistance plays an out-sized role in the budget. No one knows the exact numbers, but by one one count, "U.S. military aid covers as much as 80% of the Defense Ministry's weapons procurement costs." (In 2011, a Cornell economist estimated that U.S. aid made up one-third of Egypt's broader military budget.)

Why do we give Egypt so much aid? Since the late 1970s, U.S. policymakers have justified the aid as a way to stabilize the region and promote its interests. Here's CRS laying out the official line: "Interests include maintaining U.S. naval access to the Suez Canal, maintaining the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty, and promoting democracy and economic growth within Egypt, the region's largest Arab country."

More recently, the Obama administration has insisted that aid to Egypt is crucial to avoiding broader problems. “A hold up of aid might contribute to the chaos that may ensue because of their collapsing economy, said Secretary of State John Kerry in January. "Their biggest problem is a collapsing economy.”

[workinclasszero]

24. No s**t right?

Bernie don't do foreign policy LOL

[Motown_Johnny]

26. Hillary does only Neo-Conservative foreign policy.

I'll take Bernie's approach every time. He did get the IWR right while Hillary got it wrong.

What military action has the US taken that Hillary did not support (until the polls changed and forced her to)?

If you can't answer that then you may as well have voted for John McCain and his foreign policy approach. There is very little difference.


No Fly Zone in Syria where Russian planes are flying! Yahoo! Here we come!!! Screw it!

[John Poet]

33. DITTO. Hillary is a neoconservative HAWK on foreign policy,

little different from George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.

I now understand that's why she did not run in 2004, with the iraq war being the major issue--

because she agreed with everything they had done.

[MADem]

31. It scares the shit out of me.

We barely survived the Bush nightmare. I want a President who knows the lay of the land. I don't see Sanders as having the interest in world affairs, or the inclination to learn about them.

Like I said, there's a reason the GOP has treated him with kid gloves. They know who's easiest to take out in a general.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. Fear, the real reason to support Hillary.

Be afraid of the scary bad guys out there.

Be afraid of losing your health care.

Be afraid of tax hikes.

Just be afraid.


Where have we seen this "reasoning" before?????

[beam me up scottie]

36. NAILED IT!

[MADem]

38. No--be afraid of Bush With Messy Hair, hiring maniacs with no portfolio like Comic Book King Weaver

to run the Defense Department--that's what I'm afraid of. Of course, that's a long shot. Because the rubber would meet the road if he became our general election candidate.

Once the GOP gets through putting him through the wringer on foreign policy, and he crashes and "berns," what I'm more frightened of is the hellish four years of a Rubio or Cruz ... or even Trump....presidency, brought to us by Mister "I Don't Do Foreign Policy" who gets eaten alive in debate because he doesn't know the subject and is entirely unwilling to learn.

[Motown_Johnny]

41. What foreign policy vote has Bernie gotten wrong?

Sure the GOP won't attack Hillary on foreign policy, she agrees with them on it.

[Chezboo]

40. And she can even do it walking backwards in heels. nt

[oh08dem]

2. Sorry if I offend supporters of said weathervane

BUT Hillary isn't a weathervane on matters of war and peace; just providing lip service to us plebes. When push comes to shove she'll side with the military industrial complex .

[applegrove]

4. She's dynamic.

dy·nam·ic


/dīˈnamik/


adjective

adjective: dynamic



1.


(of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress.
"a dynamic economy"

[Live and Learn]

6. She'll win by confusing the hell out of them. nt

[NanceGreggs]

7. If by "weathervane" ...

... you mean someone who can change tack when on-the-ground events dictate a change in course, then yes, I'll take that.

The international winds change every day - sometimes minute-to-minute - and I want a POTUS who knows how to read the prevailing winds, and adjust the sails accordingly.

I much prefer a C-in-C like that to someone who wags his finger at the wind and yells about how economic injustice is at the root of all bad weather.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. Polls do not equal "on the ground events".

[tecelote]

9. It is very scary.

I know everyone hates it when I say this but... imagine if we sent teachers, doctors and engineers instead of weapons and drones?

We'd create fewer terrorists, reduce the death toll to near nil and we'd help these countries evolve.

The military should still be involved but as peacekeepers.

Of course, I'll be called unrealistic and a flower child but hey, I'm tired of our "solution" creating more terrorists and perpetuating the problem.

When we kill innocent people, they are not collateral damage. They are mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. The survivors will always hate us for killing their family members. How is this going to bring peace to the region?

Of course, that's if peace is the goal. It's not as profitable as war, so I doubt it an objective.

[loyalsister]

11. Well what if we had done that in Afghanistan

after they sacrificed their infrastructure and people to help bring down the Soviet Union? I personally believe that there would still be twin towers and less heartbreak across the globe.

[tecelote]

12. I totally agree!

[Motown_Johnny]

13. She is always in favor of military action.

On this one topic she is consistent. That will be her foreign policy.

Anyone who disagrees, please name a military action the United States took part in that she is on record opposing (in real time, not years later when the polls dictate her opinion for her).

[JaneyVee]

16. Ummm...foreign policy is a fluid situation.

Viewing that shit in just black and white is a republican trait.

[Betty Karlson]

20. She has a lot of experience with being on the wrong side of history

Surely that experience inspires voter confidence?

[TwilightGardener]

21. She has no genuine foreign policy instincts of her own.

None. I don't even think she ever really had an interest in it. I couldn't figure out why Obama made her SoS, except as a way to keep her from challenging him in 2012.

[thesquanderer]

22. A weathervane can help you figure out where the bombs will land. (n/t)

[FlatBaroque]

27. Quite simple - wait for Israel's stated position

then agree to bomb the next stated enemy of Israel.

[daleanime]

28. War.....

it's what's for dinner.

[Renew Deal]

32. Does Bernie know the Soviet Union isn't around any more?

[thereismore]

42. Haha, Bernie Sanders is no Sarah Palin! nt

[Motown_Johnny]

43. Does Hillary know Turkey is in NATO?

Because a no fly zone in Syria, where Russian planes are flying missions, is just crazy.







http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/08/nato-ready-to-deploy-forces-to-defend-turkey-against-any-threats

^snip^

Nato ready to 'defend' Turkey as Russia strikes Syria



Nato is ready to send troops to Turkey to defend against threats on its southern flank, the head of the alliance has said following violations of Turkish airspace by Russian jets conducting airstrikes in Syria.

Moscow’s growing military involvement in the Syria conflict – which on Wednesday involved its jets backing an offensive by ground troops loyal to the president, Bashar al-Assad – is expected to be high on the agenda of a meeting of the alliance’s defence ministers.

“Nato is ready and able to defend all allies, including Turkey against any threats,” Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general, told reporters before the Brussels meeting on Thursday.


“In Syria, we have seen a troubling escalation of Russian military activities. We will assess the latest developments and their implications for the security of the alliance. This is particularly relevant in view of the recent violations of Nato’s airspace by Russian aircraft.

[MADem]

47. Please stop digging a hole too deep to get out of. That's just the most absurd statement I've seen

on this board in a long time.





Your article is FOUR MONTHS OLD. That's old news, NATO is already at work and has been for some time. Heck, one of Bernie's favorite drones just crashed in Adana near the air base. Mechanical failure is suspected at this point in time (an ongoing problem w/the General Atomics models of late).

We're not over there knitting, and neither are our allies. If Turkey needs help, we (and I am using that royal "we" that includes all of our NATO allies) are going to come to their aid. That's what NATO is all about. It's too late to dither--we're acting, and so are our allies.

Everyone (save Bernie, perhaps) knows that Turkey contributes one of the largest standing militaries to the NATO effort. They aren't necessarily the best trained, but there are a shitload of them and they ARE trainable--their country has a long and honorable history of military service. And they most assuredly aren't going to be cowed by Russian intransigence.

[Motown_Johnny]

48. I know she knows that. My point being that the no fly zone is nuts.

She has not backed off her support for a no fly zone in Syria. Until she does, this is an issue. If she does, then her inability to get that call right is an issue.

I understand why you want to pretend this doesn't exist, but it does.

[MADem]

49. No fly zones work beautifully if all the players cooperate.

Russia's problem is that they want to help their good buddy in the region and act as his surrogate, not concern themselves with regional issues in an internationally-cooperative fashion.

They need Assad--and their outlet to the sea that he has allowed them to continue to use. It's all part of a bigger strategy.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. But you are the one who argues that adversaries can't work together!

So Iran and Saudi Arabia working together is a "Kumbayah" moment but all players in the Syrian conflict working together is something you think will actually happen?

You are all over the map trying to make sense out of Hillary's insane no fly zone policy.

[MADem]

51. Russia and the USA are superpowers, not regional actors.

I feel like I'm a substitute teacher in eighth grade world history, here.

You're reaching for the "too clever by half" ring. I'm not the one "all over the map" -- you're having trouble reading the map, and understanding the DYNAMIC (as opposed to static) relationships in the region.



Putin is uncooperative because he wants to re-establish the glory days of the Old USSR and the "Hunt for Red October" cult. He feels like he was ripped off when the USSR deconstructed, and he wants his turn in charge of a Big Bad Superpower, not a half-assed one, and he's going to try to get just that....he really doesn't care who he runs over in the process. He doesn't cooperate because it doesn't matter to him. The trick of diplomacy will be to find a way to MAKE it matter to him.

I wonder why you're not throwing John Kerry under your bus--he's a "No Fly" guy, too. When Russian aircraft are being used to bomb Assad's enemies, and keep them caged and starving, it's time to tell everyone to stay the hell out of the air.


smh.

[Motown_Johnny]

52. Which is why I mentioned Turkey, who already shot down a Russian plane. n/t

[MADem]

53. That encroached in THEIR air space. Back in NOVEMBER.

Of course, you aren't mentioning that Turkey addressed the latest encroachment (at the end of January) with an ambassadorial level warning, are you?

Putin is trying like hell to draw Turkey into a head on fight to avenge the loss of that aircraft. Funny how Turkey refuses to take the bait. Maybe they're bettter at playing a long game...?

[Motown_Johnny]

55. But a no fly zone would be asking for more of these incidents.

Yes, Putin is trying to draw Turkey into a fight and Hillary escalating tensions in the region would not help.

You do understand that if Hillary is elected she will server for 4 years? Something that happened less than 3 months ago is fair game.

How can you imply that something that happened back in NOVEMBER is not relevant while arguing for "playing the long game" in the same post?


You really don't make any sense.

[VulgarPoet]

44. Excruciatingly simply.

By laying in bed with the same nation that created ISIS's methodology, and spilling American blood overseas in "interventionism" tactics that are little more than foreign-bankrolled military coups. You saw what happened under her watch in Syria and Libya.

[Myrina]

45. Not just weathervane ....

.... but apparently not able to stand up and 'draw a line in the sand' as it were.
Her response to AC's question about the money from Wall Street " ... other Secretary's of State did it too ... " sounded like such a childish cop out. I was reminded of the old parental "But if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" scolding.

For someone who wants to be the "Leader of the Free World" to fall back on the 'but everyone does it' excuse is just pathetic.
You're supposed to be better than that. Stronger than that.

SMDH.

[George II]

57. Just who are you talking about?

[treestar]

59. Circular reasoning

you accepted your own premise fully and then asked the question.

Hillary was SOS for four years. There's that.

[AtomicKitten]

61. Perched on rooftop and well-lubricated.