Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
13 replies, 1624 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
13 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Please rank from most hawkish to least foreign interventionist: Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruz (Original Post)
Attorney in Texas
Mar 2016
OP
You are mistaken in your assessment of Trump and Cruz versus Clinton.
Attorney in Texas
Mar 2016
#11
Skinner
(63,645 posts)1. Trump says he's going to use the US military to threaten Mexico...
...so they will pay for his wall.
Ted Cruz wants to carpet bomb ISIS.
Claiming Hillary is more hawkish than either of them is completely wrong.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)3. We came, we saw, he died
For that poster to claim Clinton to be more interventionalist than Trump and Cruz... really????
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)11. You are mistaken in your assessment of Trump and Cruz versus Clinton.
Read Ted Cruz's own quotes on foreign policy, and you will see that he is no foreign interventionist:
"If you look at ... some of the more aggressive Washington neo-cons, they have consistently mis-perceived the threat of radical Islamic terrorism and have advocated military adventurism that has had the effect of benefiting radical Islamic terrorists."
"In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war."
"If ... the Washington neo-cons succeed in toppling Assad, Syria will be handed over to radical Islamic terrorists."
"we want to retreat from the world and be isolationist and leave everyone alone, or we've got to be these crazy neo-con invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East. Most people I know don't agree with either one of those. They think both of those are nuts."
"Qaddafi was a bad man, he had a horrible human rights record. And yet ... he had become a significant ally in fighting radical Islamic terrorism."
If you have any doubts about Cruz's non-interventionist foreign policy leanings, you should read Ted Cruz Warns Against Military Adventurism; here's an excerpt:
Sen. Ted Cruz on Thursday warned against the deployment of U.S. forces in the Middle East ... chastised those rushing to place American troops on the ground to fight the enemy.
"Some in the course of a political campaign have focused on the question of boots on the ground American boots on the ground as a talismanic demonstration of strength. That is getting the deployment of military force precisely backwards," the Texas senator said at The Heritage Foundation in Washington.... Cruz said the U.S. should instead utilize its overwhelming air advantage, arm Kurdish fighters and employ the power of the Jordanian and Egyptian militaries to battle the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.
"This is not a game of Risk," Cruz said.... "The argument that Republicans had to, in principle, support what might've been a democratic uprising against [Moammar] Gadhafi but that the Obama administration somehow botched the job is revisionist history and poor revisionist history at that," Cruz said. ".... Similarly, Cruz said intervention in the Syrian civil war is not in America's best interests. While Rubio has said the removal of Syrian President Bashar Assad is crucial to containing the spread of violent and radical groups, Cruz argued there's no good option on either side of the fight.... "Quite simply, we do not have a side in the Syrian civil war," he said, citing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as someone who holds his view.... Cruz has his eye on the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, which may be looking for a new vessel given that Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has faded as a top-flight contender for the GOP nomination.
With respect to Trump's anti-interventionist foreign policy, don't take my word for it; here is what political science professor Peter Beinart had to say:
The Republicans who support Trump ... are largely "Jacksonians" ... who ... Unlike GOP elites, they dont see American hegemony as a virtue in and of itself. They dont like spending money or sending troops abroad. They dont see free trade, let alone mass immigration, as unambiguously good. They dont believe that American security depends on democratizing far-off lands, something they suspect is impossible. And when theres a crisis in some other part of the world, their first reaction is likely to be: Why cant the countries over there handle it?...One such leader was Ronald Reagan... he had little patience for sending American troops into messy situations abroad. And when hundreds of American Marines died while serving as peacekeepers during Lebanons chaotic civil war, Reagan quickly brought the rest home. Another Jacksonian favorite was Joseph McCarthy, who told Americans that battling the Soviet Union did not require costly foreign deployments or complex international alliances. ... Trump is now a third. Hes distinguished himself from his establishment GOP rivals by opposing costly interventions in the greater Middle East. Hes said the wars in Iraq, Libya, and even Afghanistan were mistakes. Hes scorned democracy-promotion, saying he prefers dictators like Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad to the chaos that follows. And when Vladimir Putin began bombing Syrian rebels last month, Trump responded, Let Russia take care of ISIS. How many places can we be?
When you try to portray Trump and Cruz as foreign interventionists based on the nonsense about bombing ISIS, you are conflating their anti-terrorism rhetoric with foreign policy, which is decidedly a bait-and-switch (and I think you have to admit that).
Of the four main candidates in both parties, Clinton is -- by far -- the most interventionist.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)2. Lets see:
Bernie voted for more wars and war funding than anyone on that list, sooooo....
He voted to fund the troops once there.
You know this but continue to lie, lie, lie, just like Madam "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)7. Afghanistan. Kosovo. Somalia.
War funding every single year. Numerous sanctions. HJ Res 64. The list goes on and on.
TM99
(8,352 posts)9. You are no longer worth any
sort of response.
Off to ignore with a vengeance you go! Tata!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)10. Ignoring facts is now "progressive"?
Carry on.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)5. About as accurate as your predictions for Tuesday. Nt
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)8. Lets hope I never need an attorney in Texas.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)13. Still keeping it classy I see
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)12. Think you nailed it.