2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWould a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?
Special Report: Savvy neocons see Hillary Clinton as their Trojan Horse to be pulled into the White House by Democratic voters, raising the question: would a Clinton-45 presidency mean more wars, asks Robert Parry.By Robert Parry
The Democratic Party establishment seems determined to drag Hillary Clintons listless campaign across the finish line of her race with Bernie Sanders and then count on Republican divisions to give her a path to the White House. But if she gets there the world should hold its breath.
If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its regime change strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)
If Bashar al-Assad is still president of Syria, there will be demands that she finally go for the knock-out blow; there will pressure, too, for her to ratchet up sanctions on Iran pushing Tehran toward renouncing the nuclear agreement; there are already calls for deploying more U.S. troops on Russias border and integrating Ukraine into the NATO military structure.
President Clinton-45 would hear the clever talking points justifying these moves, the swaggering tough-guy/gal rhetoric, and the tear-jerking propaganda about evil enemies throwing babies off incubators, giving Viagra to soldiers to rape more women, and committing horrific crimes (some real but many imagined) against defenseless innocents.
Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton has the wisdom to resist these siren songs of confrontation and war, even if she were inclined to?
more...
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/10/would-a-clinton-win-mean-more-wars/
djean111
(14,255 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8741148/Dick-Cheney-heaps-praise-on-Hillary-Clinton.html
Because war is very profitable for some.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)All the wars while SOS? hmmmm.....
gollygee
(22,336 posts)But less likely than Cruz or Trump. Bernie>Hillary>Cruzortrump
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)If Hillary wants to go to war, who will oppose her? The Democrats?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)We need a president who isn't in the same party.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)She said a White House meeting would be immediate.
awake
(3,226 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)So, yes, war, death, killing, destruction would be a natural thing for her...
bjo59
(1,166 posts)and the banks.
Chezboo
(230 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)So instead, I'll just say the obvious: I completely agree.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Ron Green
(9,822 posts)toward the new political economy we must begin to build, if humans are to continue on this planet.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)What she'll be unable to "resist" is the siren songs of the MiC seeking more profits from war.
and no, she won't be able to do that.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)the Bush doctrine (preemptive WARS!) Technically illegal wars, gag, as if that even matters re a powerful empire like ours that are above international rules - Combined with her very pragmatic and sensible
Kissinger Doctrine (that allows us to assert our rights of global regime change anywhere we damn well think it will profit our indisputably altruistic Corporations and war tools manufacturers)
Can we assert our true role as the world dominating leaders we are manifestly destined to become in the 21st Century.
Anyone that disagrees with the only truly MUSCULAR hawk on foreign affairs. Anyone in fact that disagrees with such obvious truth should be considered as lending aid and comfort to the enemies we will make in pursuit of our rightful and destined place as military rulers of the globe and should be treated accordingly and swiftly beaten down and placed in the best private prison industry in the world as the traitors they are (and of course their leaders should be hanged for such treason), besides, such inferior thinking is weak and weakness should be eradicated from our gene pool!
Let us choose wisely and choose the one with the muscular policy needed for the new American century!
WDIM
(1,662 posts)to donate to the Clinton Foundation.
The war profiteers own the Clinton crime family.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)pacalo
(24,721 posts)It would take more courage to stand up to the neocons, but I see Hillary Clinton choosing to prove her "toughness" by embracing their agenda.
summerschild
(725 posts)I was going to vote for her in 2008 but read more about her foreign policy leanings and voted for Barrack Obama instead because he was less hawkish.
For the same reason, I voted for Bernie in the primary here.
If for any reason Bernie should not win the nomination, I will be totally sick at heart not just because I like Bernie and his plans, but I don't know if I can vote for Hillary. I have so many more reasons to distrust her foreign policy now than I did then. But I know we can't let the Republicans have it.
How are the Hillary supporters getting through this? Do we have that many people who really don't know about PNAC and what those people stood (and stand) for? What are you hanging on to that the rest of us don't know?
beedle
(1,235 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)A vote for Sanders is a vote for a strong military, but a prudential and ethical foreign policy.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)icecreamfan
(115 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,627 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Most important OP and thread, Purveyor. Here's fuel for the reactor:
Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has seen the future and it looks bleak for most of us. Thankfully, the United States of America may be in for good times, especially for those perched atop the socio-economic pyramid scheme, should war break out.
The Pitfalls of Peace
The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014
The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.
An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.
The world just hasnt had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but todays casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.
Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nations longer-run prospects.
It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not todays entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.
War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.
SNIP...
Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you dont get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but its something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.
Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0
[font color="purple"]Dr. Cowen, from what I've read, is a fine person and not one to promulgate war. He's just sayin'.
He has commented on other Big Ticket economic themes impacting us today: "Inequality," for another instance. [/font color]
Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse
by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM
Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:
"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."
It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.
SNIP...
Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.
CONTINUED with link to the audio...
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse
For some reason, the interview with Steve Inskeep didn't bring up the subject of the GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT LIKE IN THE NEW DEAL so I thought I'd bring it up. Older DUers may recall the Democratic Party once actually did do stuff for the average American, from school and work to housing and justice. But, we can't afford that now, obviously, thanks to austerity or the sequester or the divided government.
What's important is that the 1-percent may swell to a 15-percent "upper middle class." Unfortunately, that may see the rest of the middle class go the other way. Why does that ring a bell? Oh yeah.
"Commercial interests are very powerful interests," said George W Bush on Feb. 14, 2007 White House press conference in which he added, "Let me put it this way, ah, sometimes, ah, money trumps peace." And then he giggled and not a single member of the callow, cowed and corrupt press corpse saw fit to ask a follow-up.
Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention back in 2007. I don't recall even one reporter from the national corporate owned news seeing it fit to comment. Certainly not many have commented on how three generations of Bush men -- Senator Prescott Sheldon Bush, President George Herbert Walker Bush and pretzeldent George Walker Bush all had their eyes on Iraq's oil.
For some reason, Dr. Cowen LOATHES Naomi Klein and her Disaster Capitalism thesis.
Uncle Joe
(58,365 posts)Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.
Zira
(1,054 posts)the Clinton foundation after she allowed their buying arms from US manufacturers when she was Secretary of State.
azmom
(5,208 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I hope not but the article in the Atlantic seems to cast her as a more war person.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
Avalux
(35,015 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)As we say in the south, do bears shit in the woods? Do fat babies fart? Is the sky blue?
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)If I'd have known she was going to run again, and could actually win, I would have never enlisted. I refuse to have the blood she'll illegally shed on my hands.
polly7
(20,582 posts)No question in my mind whatsoever about that.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)The two main methods that the 1% uses to drain our Treasury.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)maiming and destruction for others. Oh, and the US takes such good care of vets, NOT! As some say, war is a racket, and a highly profitable for some as they wave the flag.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Of Course it would
She has always been a neocon chicken-hawk with really bad judgement. That add up to more Americans KIA.
IT also adds up to her supporters obligated to make lots of excuses.
I don't want to see that. I don't want my kids ground up in that.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Bernie might even do the same, but he would be more restrained.