One of the largest differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is how they see the use of the US Military in both deployment and in killing people and blowing up things in other countries. In this diary, I am only addressing HRCs positions on the US starting up new military operations since she was widely known to the public in 1992.
I leave it to the reader to decide whether HRCs positions on these issues were good or bad policy:
Here is HRC's history since she has been visible nationally in 1992:
- HRC did not oppose US military in Bosnia in the 1990s.
- HRC did not oppose the US no-fly zone over Iraq in the 1990s including the entire Pres Clinton administration.
- HRC did not oppose the Dec 1998 US/UK massive bombing of Iraq over concerns that Iraq had WMD programs, including Nuclear, Bio and Chemical.
- HRC did not oppose the US going into Afghanistan in 2001.
- HRC did not oppose the US going into Iraq in 2003
- HRC has not opposed the use of the military's drones to kill suspected terrorists
- HRC did not oppose the US military going into Pakistan to capture/kill Bin Laden
- HRC did not oppose the US taking military action in Libya.
- HRC did not oppose military action in Syria
- HRC did not oppose military action against ISIS
Did I miss anything? If so, please add to the comment section. I don't consider opposition to continuing a Military action, such as Iraq, when the original position was support for the Military action as opposition to the Military action. I consider those cases as regrets for an earlier decision.
What new situation was there, where the use of the US Military was seriously considered and HRC opposed its use? Help me here, I can't think or find any.
I am not saying that all or any of the above were bad policy positions, I leave that to the reader.
Consider this information to help people make a forecast on what a HRC presidency would be like in regards to the use of the US military to kill and injure people and blow things up in other countries.