4 ms·

First off, it's ALWAYS "an election" when an election is on. The immediate goal of winning the election is probably 99% of her reasoning for hammering Russia a

by jbooth 10y ago

First off, it's ALWAYS "an election" when an election is on. The immediate goal of winning the election is probably 99% of her reasoning for hammering Russia about the hacking attempts. It's the best political answer to anything about the content of the leaked emails for like 5 different reasons. She also laid out her parameters for any potential future intervention in Syria, in the same debate, and there was no talk of massive escalation, just the same secret ninja stuff we're presumably already doing. America doesn't have an appetite for another nation-building experiment, and we've got way less interest in Syria than Russia does. I realize "just take her at her word" sounds a little naive, but you're not exactly on firmer ground when you say "no, trust me, I know her secret plan".

mhermher 10y ago
If there's no appetite, you can make one. See media coverage. See media coverage before the Iraq invasion. See any of the many examples from history. Nobody knows, but I have a strong feeling that you're gonna look back at that comment in a years time and feel pretty foolish about it. Her stint as SoS showed you all the evidence you need of her hawkishness.
- jbooth 10y ago
  Someone needs to make a trustworthy escrow site for betting on situations like this. I could take a blanket bet against "any conspiratorial theory about Hillary Clinton" and clear 80% of them. Her stint as SoS featured a 20-something-day operation in Libya, laying groundwork for detente with Cuba and Iran, while getting the chemical weapons out of Syria without a shot fired. I'll go on record that we just keep doing the same stuff we're doing in Syria. Unlikely that we even do a no-fly-zone, there's absolutely no reason to risk open combat against Russia. That's crazy. EDIT: Maybe US advisors with the Kurds in Mosul wind up technically in Syria while helping get rid of ISIS. But it's likely that Assad will be shored up enough at that point to demand no US troops over the border and we go along with it.

by jbooth 10y ago

mhermher 10y ago

If there's no appetite, you can make one. See media coverage. See media coverage before the Iraq invasion. See any of the many examples from history. Nobody knows, but I have a strong feeling that you're gonna look back at that comment in a years time and feel pretty foolish about it. Her stint as SoS showed you all the evidence you need of her hawkishness.

jbooth 10y ago
Someone needs to make a trustworthy escrow site for betting on situations like this. I could take a blanket bet against "any conspiratorial theory about Hillary Clinton" and clear 80% of them. Her stint as SoS featured a 20-something-day operation in Libya, laying groundwork for detente with Cuba and Iran, while getting the chemical weapons out of Syria without a shot fired. I'll go on record that we just keep doing the same stuff we're doing in Syria. Unlikely that we even do a no-fly-zone, there's absolutely no reason to risk open combat against Russia. That's crazy. EDIT: Maybe US advisors with the Kurds in Mosul wind up technically in Syria while helping get rid of ISIS. But it's likely that Assad will be shored up enough at that point to demand no US troops over the border and we go along with it.