If Hillary wins, will you support invading Syria?

I have a simple question to Hillary supporters...

If she wins and things continue in the world as they are....

Will you support Hillary in sending troops to Syria?

She wanted to before and was a strong advocate as the secretary of state. She would follow suit as president. She settled for arming the rebels against Assad (ISIS). If she wants to be more involved, will you rally behind her?

As a separate question, will you join the armed forces if your answer was yes to my first question, or encourage your kids and family to do so?

a reply to: tadaman

I don't think Hillary has ever been for the invasion of Syria, even as secretary of State. Do you have a source which she said she supported an invasion? I've tried to look everywhere, can't find her saying this. Neither has Obama.

It also depends what you define as an invasion. The United States has already sent a special force around 100 to assist with the crises. Both supported by Democrats and Republicans.

Personally I don't think an invasion of Syria is a good idea, I'm opposed to it. Nation building has only done more damage to the ME in my opinion. It's a dire situation but at the end of the day there will always be issues in nations. You've expect to solve all the worlds problems. ISIS is a security threat but there are otherways in combating them aside from invading.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I am not going to argue as was done when Obama said ground troops, then combat troops, then special forces.....

American soldiers being sent to syria is my definition. In what ever capacity or strength.

That includes contractors.

She backed Obamas resolve to get involved by sending Americans with uniforms and guns over to a foreign civil war.

I agree with you. We should stay the hell out of Syria or we might end up shooting or getting shot by Russians. Then its a new game.

a reply to: Southern Guardian
The first hit I got was huffington post interpenetrating, correctly IMO, her support for safe zones in the first Democratic debate. that would only be possible by requiring ground troops to protect them according to a Senate Armed Services committee hearing between McCain and Genera Lloyd Austin.

CLINTON: ... And, to — provide safe zones so that people are not going to have to be flooding out of Syria at the rate they are. And, I think it’s important too that the United States make it very clear to Putin that it’s not acceptable for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing people on behalf of Assad, and we can’t do that if we don’t take more of a leadership position, which is what I’m advocating.

SANDERS: We should be supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria.


Hillary’s claim that “nobody” supports sending U.S. ground troops to Syria was fundamentally misleading, because whoever calls for the U.S. to establish a “safe zone” in Syria — as Hillary did in her previous utterance to which Sanders was responding — is calling for “ground troops.”

This fact was made clear by a well-publicized exchange in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on September 16 between Senator John McCain, chair of the committee, and General Lloyd Austin, head of U.S. Central Command [“CENTCOM”], in which McCain pressed General Austin to say that he favored establishing “safe zones” in Syria and General Austin refused to do so, on the grounds that a “safe zone” would require a “ground force.” The video of the exchange is here. The full video of the hearing is here.

McCain: Would you recommend a no-fly zone in Syria?

Austin: I would not recommend it at this point, sir.

McCain: ... Would you recommend telling — setting up a buffer zone in Syria where these refugees might...

Austin: It will take a ground force to be able to protect the refugees if we do that, sir.

McCain: Would you support a buffer zone which would then protect some of these refugees ...?

Austin: I don’t see the force available to be able to protect them currently, sir. So I would not recommend it at this point in time.

It is really a mute point though because John Kerry and President Obama have already sent ground troops to Syria, and even lost some agents within the intelligence community to a bomb strike from Russia after coalition aircraft attacked Syrian troops.

a reply to: tadaman

I will not support the war.

I will refuse to recognize Hillary as president.

She will make the rest of the Middle East look like Libya.

a reply to: tadaman

I'm not a Hillary or Donald supporter (abstaining from POTUS vote in an effort to keep my conscience clear), but I would think many HRC voters would not support an invasion of Syria. They might just think HRC wars would be less damaging to the world and nation than DJT wars.

They might be right, might be wrong. Either way, I believe our involvement in wars with zero positive outcome will accelerate. I just doubt that by voting for that beast they would be doing so specifically in support of war.

#VoteBryant

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I am not going to argue as was done when Obama said ground troops, then combat troops, then special forces.....

American soldiers being sent to syria is my definition. In what ever capacity or strength.

That includes contractors.

She backed Obamas resolve to get involved by sending Americans with uniforms and guns over to a foreign civil war.

I agree with you. We should stay the hell out of Syria or we might end up shooting or getting shot by Russians. Then its a new game.

What??? She was very vocal about a no fly zone in Syria, Have you any idea how a no fly zone is enforced???

A better question might be:

If Hillary wins, will you support going to war with Russia?

a reply to: tadaman

If Hillary Wins , I Will Move to Syria .

Very legitimate question by the OP.

She certainly on foreign affairs is dangerous

Getting down on Trump of course doesn’t mean one supports Hillary in her ideas on Syria--SHE MUST BE ARDENTLY OPPOSSED

It just means Trump is a stupid, vapid, ignorant, conman who even though gives lip service to doing things differently we all know its just rhetoric and Trump will fold like a cheap camera to the neocons and things will be done in the usual way in a Trump regime.

We know what Hillary’s issues are and have to ardently oppose her foreign policy as we oppose Obama’s.

This crazy woman wants to start WWIII we’ll just hit the streets. Impeach her ass.

But the idea Trump would be some Ron Paul type president is clearly ridiculous.

That said, the OP asks a legitimate discussion we have to iron out if one opposes Trump and Hillary gets in.

An astute observer made the point: with Trump its a civil war, but with Hillary its WWIII. A very hyperbolic point of course but with grains of truth to it.

a reply to: tadaman

Honestly?

I see everyone who voted for Hillary suddenly feeling "hawkish" and will support her.

a reply to: tadaman




The question asked is a nonsense question. The US will not go into Syria while Russia is there, no matter who is president.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

If I am in the army by then, I will do as I am told so long as its a legal order.

I am being kind of self serving. This election has extra significance for me as it may decide how my life turns out while in the military.

I dont want to fight Russians. I like and respect them. That said, I would fight them if a legal order was given to me.

I would rather we did not send so much as a single bullet to syria, let alone people to shoot them or show others how to.

a reply to: tadaman
Damn State Department. We need to remove their war powers. No more unconstitutional adventures without a declaration from Congress!! Its like under Obama, the Executive Branch consolidated an amplified the powers of the other two branches for themselves.

a reply to: defiythelie

We are already there, as is half of Europe.

The only thing left is to listen to current military commanders in line with Obama and Clinton and send more support to a rapidly growing conflict.

This is an important issue we have to be vigilant regarding.

There is a US government deep black operation that has been going on for over a decade now.

I don't know all their goals but its clear it involves creating havoc in the ME with jihadi movements that work to overthrow secular ME governments that leads to what we have seen in the ME for the last decade or so.

The interesting thing here is the fact that the US state department is likely responsible for this deep black operation.

That’s one reason Hillary and now John Kerry runs the US state department and there has never been an Obama person at that helm. Its as if its been franchised out to an outer secret group to administrate this black operation in the ME.


So that tells me Hillary knows where all the bodies are buried in this clandestine operation. She likely intends to take the helm of foreign policy and continue this deep black operation to the detriment of the ME and the world


Hopefully Russia, Putin, the Chinese, Iran and the astute US citizens like us hetre can stop her.

Whoever votes for Hillary will have blood on their hands.

Well, not really. Elections are rigged in favor of Hillary and your vote doesn't count, but it will be as if it did.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: tadaman
Damn State Department. We need to remove their war powers. No more unconstitutional adventures with a declaration from Congress!! Its like under Obama, the Executive Branch consolidated an amplified the powers of the other two branches for themselves.

Please read this underneath very closely. The US is NOT just doing all this stuff in a vacuum.

The Special Activities Division (SAD) is a division of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, responsible for Covert Action and "Special Activities". These special activities include covert political influence and paramilitary operations. The division is overseen by the United States Secretary of State.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

The Special Activities Division (SAD) is a division of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, responsible for Covert Action and "Special Activities". These special activities include covert political influence and paramilitary operations. The division is overseen by the United States Secretary of State.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Read above it applies to literally EVERYTHING that has been going on such as Benghazi [ REALATED TO-- ABOVE PARAMILITARY OPERATIONS]


SYRIA [ REALATED TO ABOVE-- PARAMILITARY OPERATIONS]


Libya [ REALATED TO ABOVE-- PARAMILITARY OPERATIONS] also with Libya add NATO to the mix

Egypt: Related to above [These special activities include covert political influence]

All Hillary and John Kerry controlled operations READ ABOVE: [The division is overseen by the United States Secretary of State.]

This is CLEAR what's going on

It needs to be exposed

a reply to: Willtell
Thats the intelligence side. The side thats supposed to be denied and sacrificed when caught. Actual US Armed Servicemen are there under the direction of the Pentagon and orders of Obama. Uniformed servicemen represent actual American policy. CIA is for the activities which must be able to be denied, and therefore still not subject to a congressional declaration. "Special forces" aka Uniformed military personnel require the traditional congressional approval for armed activities in foreign lands since they represent official US policy. But Since 9/11, the Executive Branch gave itself and the State Department unlimited power.