Quote (excellence @ Oct 24 2016 10:55am)
Both articles are peddling the notion of 'dealing with the evil bad guys from the lands to the east'
Hussein was such a threat to global stability that disarming killing him led to more instability.
Russia was deemed a non-factor by Obama during the last election and Se(c)retary Clinton hit the reset button with them years back - whats with the fearmongering about them. The only propoganda being perpetrated is by the American Democrats, blaming 'Russia' for everything that makes them look bad- including official FBI reports.
A clear display of foolish extremely careless and unreasonable rhetoric when proper diplomacy is necessary.
Do you remember the stuff that was happening in the 90's/early 00's at all? Hussein was definitely a threat to its surrounding countries. He had ignored the sovereignty of neighbouring nations many times before. Whether invasion was necessary can be disputed, but I'm just comparing the two articles from the Economist, not the reality. And comparing those two there are differences in how they are approached. The titles are sensationalist, but that's hardly something that changed over the years in the USA.
I do agree that Clinton takes too harsh a stance on Russia, but Russia certainly hasn't made it easy for itself. Just recently they said they would release their radar data on MH17 but they still have not done so. They've also had some questionable actions around the Baltics where it seems they are testing the waters, ignoring borders with both ships and aircraft.