12th June 2016, 9:12 PM
Yes, there's a large group of sexists going nuts over Hillary. It's been an issue since her first campaign and it isn't right. Weltall's points about her past policies can't be dismissed out of hand though ABF. She's saying her policies are different now, but we can't forget her past so easily.
As for Syria, and any other country that suddenly has a crisis like this in the future (we can be sure plenty will come and go), I've learned from history that America used to have a far more productive method than the ridiculous dichotomy of "should we send in troops or do nothing?". Namely, nation building in a much more literal sense. BEFORE the wars start in a country, America can offer aid in the form of building new schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. Note the specifics. We can't just write a check and send it to these countries, as their corrupt leaders will inevitably spend it on something horrible. We need to dictate the terms by actually doing the work ourselves. This used to be how America handled things, for at least a decade or two, before officials switched to the "invade them" strategy while simultaneously framing the dichotomy to make sure everyone nicely forgot about the existence of any other way.
So, we don't send in troops when these things are going on internally because we've seen what happens, but we try to provide a bottom level that internal change can build on. Oh, and we should certainly help provide an escape route and a home for refugees, though refugees have ALWAYS had a world-wide status of pariah, a lot of countries are at least opening their doors. It remains to be seen just how well the citizens of countries like Canada will treat their refugees in the long term (history shows the longer the stay the more resentment tends to build), but it's certainly an important first step that America isn't taking.
As for Syria, and any other country that suddenly has a crisis like this in the future (we can be sure plenty will come and go), I've learned from history that America used to have a far more productive method than the ridiculous dichotomy of "should we send in troops or do nothing?". Namely, nation building in a much more literal sense. BEFORE the wars start in a country, America can offer aid in the form of building new schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. Note the specifics. We can't just write a check and send it to these countries, as their corrupt leaders will inevitably spend it on something horrible. We need to dictate the terms by actually doing the work ourselves. This used to be how America handled things, for at least a decade or two, before officials switched to the "invade them" strategy while simultaneously framing the dichotomy to make sure everyone nicely forgot about the existence of any other way.
So, we don't send in troops when these things are going on internally because we've seen what happens, but we try to provide a bottom level that internal change can build on. Oh, and we should certainly help provide an escape route and a home for refugees, though refugees have ALWAYS had a world-wide status of pariah, a lot of countries are at least opening their doors. It remains to be seen just how well the citizens of countries like Canada will treat their refugees in the long term (history shows the longer the stay the more resentment tends to build), but it's certainly an important first step that America isn't taking.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)