Clinton condemns Trump's plans for Nato

[Seshmeister]

US Election 2016: Clinton condemns Trump's plans for Nato


Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton rebuked Republicans and defended Nato in a counter-terrorism speech after deadly attacks in Brussels.

Her comments contrasted sharply with her Republican counterparts, namely Donald Trump, who has suggested scaling back US commitments to Nato.

Mrs Clinton said the US should consult more deeply with Arab partners and stand with Europe in its time of need.

"Our European allies stood with us on 9/11. It's time to return the favour."

America should not turn its back on its allies, she said during remarks at Stanford University in California, and insulting them is not a good way to fight terrorism.

She addressed Mr Trump's calls to reinstate the use of torture and water boarding to glean information from those accused of terrorism.

"I am proud to have been part of an administration that outlawed torture," the former secretary of state said.

The deadly attacks in Brussels that killed more than 30 people are the "latest brutal reminder" that more must be one to defeat to so-called Islamic State (IS) militant group, she said.

The US and Europe should take a "harder look" at airport security protocols, and other "soft targets" that IS may attack.

Mrs Clinton also said proposal in Congress to make a national commission on encryption could help fight online radicalisation.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has suggested in the wake of the attacks that police patrol Muslim neighbourhoods to fight terrorism, and has also suggested "carpet-bombing" IS in Syria.

Mrs Clinton called his suggestion "wrong, counterproductive and dangerous," and that it would be similar to "treating American Muslims like criminals".

Mr Trump has said it is acceptable to kill terrorists' families and that the US should not admit any Muslims into its borders.

"If Mr Trump gets his way, it will be like Christmas in the Kremlin," she said of Mr Trump's foreign policy views.
Share this story About sharing

[Seshmeister]

Cruz wants to carpet bomb ISIS which means also civilians.

[jacksmar]

Cruz wants to carpet bomb ISIS which means also civilians.

sesh, your socialist bullshit lies never quit do they.

[jacksmar]

sesh, you're probably wondering why i posted a vid about a big government, lying, marriage cheating socialist.

the question is: will his wife run now?

[Seshmeister]

sesh, you're probably wondering why i posted a vid about a big government, lying, marriage cheating socialist.

Yup - never liked the guy, never voted for him, he is irrelevant politically even in Scotland now and I have no idea what this has to do with anything in this thread.

Here's a picture of a baby aardvark.

[Seshmeister]

sesh, your socialist bullshit lies never quit do they.

He's talking complete shit here as usual, he's not fit to be a commander in chief. In a 'normal' election he would never have got so far.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ted-cr...16-1?r=US&IR=T

Cruz's ISIS strategy has been criticized by military experts who say that carpet bombing is not only ineffective, but also counterproductive and dangerous.

Christopher Harmer, a former US Navy officer and currently a senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, told Business Insider in December that "you have to be deliberately ignorant of the nature of ISIS … [and] of the limits of air power to advocate carpet bombing."

Harmer pointed out that carpet bombing "really doesn't do anything except hit a bunch of civilians and maybe a few ISIS fighters" and "only applies when you're trying to level entire cities or destroy civilian populations."

Harmer also said that carpet-bombing in Iraq and Syria could actually end up helping ISIS. If American bombs kill innocent civilians, ISIS could use it to lure in new recruits, because it would play into their narrative that the West is at war with Muslims in general rather than ISIS specifically.

Cruz has previously defended his statements about carpet bombing by saying that he would use the strategy on ISIS positions rather than the cities ISIS occupies in Iraq and Syria. But since ISIS integrates with the civilians populations it controls, it's difficult to establish enemy positions that aren't surrounded by civilians.

[FORD]

I doubt that Rafael Cruz-Buchanan really understands what "carpet bombing" actually means. He probably thinks it involves strapping bombs to magic flying carpets and sending them to a terrorists house.

[Seshmeister]

It's just a bunch of dick waving macho bullshit.

Day 1 he would go into the war room, they would tell him they are already attacking all the targets they have and he would walk out again - or maybe flutter out in bat form.

[Kristy]

Speaking of dick waggin' here's slave SESH harassing the youth:

[DONNIEP]

The problem here is its a no win situation. If we keep bombing them then some civilians are gonna die. It's war and since the enemy is dug in with the civilians then shit like that happens. If we send in ground troops we end up looking like occupiers, Great Satan, all that stupid bullshit and some civilians are gonna die and ISIS will use all that as recruiting propaganda.

So what do we do? Because anybody who thinks if we - the West - stops dropping bombs on these idiots they'll stop blowing shit up real good and inspiring bedroom jihadis to blow shit up real good - you are insane. And if we pull out altogether, the Sunni and Shia will kill each other until there's nobody left. Including anybody who's any other faith or don't give a shit either way.

Nobody ever puts forth a solution but maybe pulling out is the way to go. But if we do that nobody better sit there crying about how everybody is being slaughtered in the region. But they will, and then it will again be the US's fault for not doing what they didn't want us to do in the first place.