Clinton offers more of the same on Syria.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Hillary Clinton is basically saying that the US policy of fighting Assad and ISIS will continue under her watch. Maybe it's me, but I believe that's an utterly terrible plan and shows almost criminal disregard for Syrian stuck in the middle of a multi party proxy war.

Thoughts?

US Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has accused rival Hillary Clinton of being too quick to support regime change in Syria at a debate dominated by national security issues and how best to defeat Islamic State militants.

Key points

Clinton, Sanders clash over Syria

O'Malley focuses on gun control

Sanders apologises to Clinton over data breach

Clinton says Trump is a great recruiter for IS

The two leading candidates for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, joined by former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley, also clashed over gun control, an issue that has resurfaced this year after a series of mass shootings culminating in the December 2 killings of 14 people in California.

Mr Sanders, seeking to bite into Mrs Clinton's big lead in polls of Democratic voters, criticised the former secretary of state for supporting the speedy departure of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has resisted all diplomatic efforts to leave power with a civil war raging in his country and swathes of territory controlled by Islamic State militants.

"Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be," Mr Sanders said during the ABC America debate.

"Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit [islamic State].

"Regime change is easy. Getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after."

Mrs Clinton, the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, rejected the criticism and pointed out that Mr Sanders as a US senator from Vermont had voted "for regime change with respect to Libya" in 2011.

And she disagreed with Mr Sanders's assertion that the US military should prioritise the fight against IS militants over working to get Mr Assad to leave power, saying both should be done at the same time.

"We will not get the support on the ground in Syria to dislodge [iS] if the fighters there who are not associated with [iS], but whose principal goal is getting rid of Assad don't believe there is a political diplomatic channel that is ongoing. We now have that," Mrs Clinton said.

"It's very important we operate on both at the same time."

O'Malley pushes gun control issue

The gun control issue was pressed by Mr O'Malley, who is far behind in the polls and needs to shake up a race increasingly tilting against him with six weeks to go until Iowa holds the first nominating contest on February 1.

He accused his opponents of adopting a more aggressive stance on gun control in the wake of this year's mass shootings.

Mr O'Malley also said IS militants had advised recruits that the best way to get a weapon in the United States was at a gun show where rules were more lenient on the purchase of a firearm.

This is a result, he said, of "flip-flopping" by Mr Sanders and Mrs Clinton.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa, Martin," Mr Sanders said.

"Let's tell the truth, Martin," Mrs Clinton chimed in.

Mr Sanders said he had lost an election in Vermont for a gun-control stance and Mrs Clinton said she had backed gun-control measures.

The Democrats' third debate was marked by controversy from the start over a recent data breach of Mrs Clinton's campaign voter files by a staffer for Mr Sanders, who was subsequently fired.

Mr Sanders apologised to Mrs Clinton for the breach.

"Yes, I apologise," he said when asked about the controversy during the debate.

But he renewed his criticism of the Democratic National Committee for freezing access to his own voter files until the issue was resolved late on Friday.

Mrs Clinton, whose campaign said Mr Sanders made a number of breaches into Mrs Clinton's computer files, accepted the apology and said it was time to move on.

"I very much appreciate that comment, Bernie," she said.

"Now that I think we've resolved your data, we've agreed on an independent inquiry, we should move on.

"I don't think the American people are all that interested in this."

Mrs Clinton attacked Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump several times, chiefly for his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

She said Islamic State militants were showing videos of billionaire tycoon Mr Trump talking about his proposed ban as a recruitment tool.

Reuters

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-20/democratic-debate-candidates-sanders-clinton-clash-over-syria/7044114

[TBoneTX 46,288]

Hillary Clinton is [...] criminal

1. The above.

2. At this point, what difference does it make?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Hillary Clinton is basically saying that the US policy of fighting Assad and ISIS will continue under her watch. Maybe it's me, but I believe that's an utterly terrible plan and shows almost criminal disregard for Syrian stuck in the middle of a multi party proxy war.

Thoughts?

i'm with you. i don't even know why jeb is running, getting hillary in there will be just like a third bush potus.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Hillary Clinton is basically saying that the US policy of fighting Assad and ISIS will continue under her watch. Maybe it's me, but I believe that's an utterly terrible plan and shows almost criminal disregard for Syrian stuck in the middle of a multi party proxy war.

Thoughts?

We have moral responsibilities to Afghanistan and Iraq for faster and more committed involvement being that we invaded.. We do not for Syria so we can base strategy based on our own ROI - so what is on our best interest?

Obama said This in response to a similar question to a press conference in Turkey:

...And keep in mind that we have the finest military in the world and we have the finest military minds in the world, and I’ve been meeting with them intensively for years now, discussing these various options, and it is not just my view but the view of my closest military and civilian advisers that that would be a mistake -- not because our military could not march into Mosul or Raqqa or Ramadi and temporarily clear out ISIL, but because we would see a repetition of what we’ve seen before, which is, if you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes, that they resurface -- unless we’re prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries.

So a strategy has to be one that can be sustained. And the strategy that we’re pursuing, which focuses on going after targets, limiting wherever possible the capabilities of ISIL on the ground -- systematically going after their leadership, their infrastructure, strengthening Shia -- or strengthening Syrian and Iraqi forces and Kurdish forces that are prepared to fight them, cutting off their borders and squeezing the space in which they can operate until ultimately we’re able to defeat them -- that’s the strategy we’re going to have to pursue.

That is the current thinking from our government: If the locals don't do the bulk of the work then anything we do will be temporary or will require a permanent occupation... So he is playing the long game of keeping ISIS off balance and helping the "goodish" guys survive and make progress against them.

There are no good solutions here and there are going to be millions of victims irrelevant of what is done.. This is what Clinton wants to continue.. What is a better course of action?

Edited December 22, 2015 by OnMyWayID

[Sousuke 1,214]

I wonder if the US should distance itself from the Syrian side of the war and focus on the Iraq half(and cutting ISIS in two).

Things are getting messy between Assad, Turkey & Russia.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Sousuke

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Get out all together

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Both valid ideas.. Would either idea stop the refugee flow? How would walking away affect other middle east nations not currently under threat? Would ISIS feel emboldened and spread across weaker nations in Africa? At what point do we engage if they go into countries with nukes or with whom we have treaties? Do we think we can fence them in without also cutting off all refugees?

After a terrorist bombing in Spain they turned tail and disengaged from confrontation. It seemed to work for them, I'm not sure that option would work for us.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Both valid ideas.. Would either idea stop the refugee flow? How would walking away affect other middle east nations not currently under threat? Would ISIS feel emboldened and spread across weaker nations in Africa? At what point do we engage if they go into countries with nukes or with whom we have treaties? Do we think we can fence them in without also cutting off all refugees?

After a terrorist bombing in Spain they turned tail and disengaged from confrontation. It seemed to work for them, I'm not sure that option would work for us.

I believe both Saudi and Qatar need to be convinced to tell ISIS that they can't carry on. The west needs to come up with plan that offers people in Iraq and Syria some kind of hope, and perhaps the West needs to recognize some of the damage it has caused in those countries. And yes the United States has a moral obligation to the people of Syria for helping to create conditions on the ground for groups such as ISIS to come into existence.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Get out all together

we agree again.

I believe both Saudi and Qatar need to be convinced to tell ISIS that they can't carry on. The west needs to come up with plan that offers people in Iraq and Syria some kind of hope, and perhaps the West needs to recognize some of the damage it has caused in those countries. And yes the United States has a moral obligation to the people of Syria for helping to create conditions on the ground for groups such as ISIS to come into existence.

we should definitely focus on our moral obligation. and not just in syria.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

we agree again.

I see this as having our foot on the landmine and deciding to just step off... We made one mistake our options are limited.

[smilesammich 10,727]

I see this as having our foot on the landmine and deciding to just step off... We made one mistake our options are limited.

i'm a dirty hippie, i want to see us focus entirely on the humanitarian aspect and ending the suffering we've been perpetuating for as long as i can remember... with respect to humanitarian aide we need to go all in. we need to stop killing and arming people, making everything worse.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I believe both Saudi and Qatar need to be convinced to tell ISIS that they can't carry on. The west needs to come up with plan that offers people in Iraq and Syria some kind of hope, and perhaps the West needs to recognize some of the damage it has caused in those countries. And yes the United States has a moral obligation to the people of Syria for helping to create conditions on the ground for groups such as ISIS to come into existence.

People rebelled all over the middle east in the Arab spring. I don't see any moral obligation in Syria just a pragmatic one but I can see the argument.

I do wish other players in the area were more involved (especially in the refugee placement) but they all seem to be playing strictly to their own best interests.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

i'm a dirty hippie, i want to see us focus entirely on the humanitarian aspect and ending the suffering we've been perpetuating for as long as i can remember... with respect to humanitarian aide we need to go all in. we need to stop killing and arming people, making everything worse.

Dirty hippie! Yeah I get it - but I think the action you propose would just lead to the bad guys being even more powerful and lead to even more deaths and victims in the future - which would of course be all blamed on us and start the next cycle of ISIS and terrorism on steroids.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Dirty hippie! Yeah I get it - but I think the action you propose would just lead to the bad guys being even more powerful and lead to even more deaths and victims in the future - which would of course be all blamed on us and start the next cycle of ISIS and terrorism on steroids.

maybe. but overall i believe that this approach would weaken isis. they would not have the upper hand when it comes to new recruits. plus, non violence is the only response i can personally align with.

[Póg mo 1,749]

People rebelled all over the middle east in the Arab spring. I don't see any moral obligation in Syria just a pragmatic one but I can see the argument.

I do. The USA armed rebel groups inside of Syria. It got involved in a civil war, it had no business getting involved in. ISIS would not even be a factor, were it not for the United States failed policies in Iraq, so don't tell me that the USA has no moral obligation to the people of Syria.