• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Who Is More Likely To Cause WW3: Trump or Clinton?

maxflinn

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
5,275
It's a pretty serious thing to consider, is it not?

To my mind Clinton is by far the more aggressive of the two. She has voted in favour of every war the US has waged in recent times, including the illegal Iraq invasion.

Hillary Clinton’s Unapologetically Hawkish Record Faces 2016 Test | TIME.com

She has also called for a no-fly zone in Syria.

The term “no-fly zone” is casually thrown around in the debates unchallenged, either because the moderators themselves don’t know what exactly it means or because they assume their audience doesn’t. Either way, “no-fly zone” has become the most effective way of calling for regime change in Syria without appearing to do so. It’s a neocon dog-whistle designed to appeal to hawks without offending a war-weary public. As George Orwell wrote in “Politics and the English Language,” “such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”
She has also threatened to 'obliterate Iran', should Iran launch a nuclear strike at Israel.

But Iran has never had nuclear weapons, and she knows this.

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran

She has also threatened Russia and China because they 'support the legitimate government of Syria' :roll:

Clinton: Russia and China will 'pay price' for supporting Assad

“I do not believe that Russia and China are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime. The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price,” Clinton warned.­
And she has compared Russia's President: Vladimir Putin, to Hitler

since leaving the State Department in 2013, her harsh rhetoric about Russia raised eyebrows among hawks and doves alike.

At a California fundraiser last year, she reportedly compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. At a meeting earlier this year with London Mayor Boris Johnson, he said she faulted European leaders for being “too wimpy” about challenging Mr. Putin.

Conservative commentator Paul Craig Roberts, an economist who served as assistant secretary of treasury under President Reagan, warned that Mrs. Clinton will have a difficulty backing down from a confrontation with Mr. Putin after calling him Hitler.

“When you go that far out on a limb, you really kind of have to go the rest of the way,” he said in an interview at Infowars.com. “I don’t’ think there is any candidate that we can end up with as president that would be more likely to go to war with Russia than Hillary.”
She is also the darling of the American terrorist organisation: the Neoconservatives, whereas they fervently oppose Trump.

Neocon War Hawks Want Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump. No Surprise – They’ve Always Backed Her

The neoconservative Right would have you believe this election affords them a uniquely tough choice. On the one hand, there’s Hillary Clinton, liberal bogeywoman and hated embodiment of the Democratic establishment. On the other, there’s Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called the Iraq war a mistake, accused the Bush administration of lying to drag the United States into said war, claimed he would be “neutral” in his dealings with Israel and just recently sketched out an “unabashedly noninterventionist approach to world affairs” for the Washington Post editorial board.

Whether or not Trump believes any of this is, as usual, up for debate. But some neocons are so disgusted with his rejection of foreign policy establishment thinking that they’ve declared the unthinkable: They’re going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Yes, the Neocons, the warmongers supreme, the people behind all of America's disastrous regime change wars that have left hundreds of thousands dead and caused Europe to flood with refugees, they support Hillary.

Here's more opinion: Faber: I'd Vote for Trump Because 'Hillary Clinton Will Destroy the Whole World'

Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Boom & Doom Report, has thrown down the gauntlet on who he thinks should be the next president of the U.S.
During an interview on Bloomberg TV, Faber said that the U.S. would not be a sound, well-run economy like Singapore's "unless of course the U.S. is run by Mr. Trump, then the U.S. will improve."
He tempered his assessment seconds later when asked if he was serious, indicating that Donald Trump might not necessarily be good for the U.S., but that other options were worse.
"It's all relative," he said. "Given the alternatives, I would vote for Mr. Trump because he may only destroy the U.S. economy, but Hillary Clinton will destroy the whole world."
So to Trump, well he has said that the world would be a safer place were Saddam and Ghadaffi still in it ruling their respective countries, which of course it would be.

He has said that he sees no reason why the US can't be an ally of Russia, and Putin agrees.

He has said that the US should not be arming the people that fight Assad, and he's right, and if they had not we may not have had the refugee crisis here in Europe.

He has said that the trillions of US Dollars used to invade Iraq would have been better spent on America, and it clearly would.

And he has said that the US need to end their warmongering in the Middle East, and of course that would be much better for everybody too.

Yet all these sensible positions are frowned upon by the Neocons, who want endless war and destruction, and who support Clinton, and who made this Trump attack video in which they portray his sensible, anti-war positions as a bad thing:

So given all of this info: who do you think is more likely to start WW3, Clinton or Trump?

[video=youtube;73-xpW1tFV8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73-xpW1tFV8[/video]
 
Last edited:


Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
32,686
The Joooos Max the Joooos
 

maxflinn

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
5,275
Some choice
Isn't it just :roll:

Still, I'd rather the person least likely to cause a thermonuclear Holocaust, and that person ain't Clinton..
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
Excellent thread Max; you have really illustrated to the clownish paddies who think they are being sophisticated by supporting Hilary what a monster she is and how mistaken they are.
 

daveL

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
19,367
Excellent thread Max; you have really illustrated to the clownish paddies who think they are being sophisticated by supporting Hilary what a monster she is and how mistaken they are.
does she not think much of dogmatic religious loons?
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
does she not think much of dogmatic religious loons?
Well she seemed rather fond of such when they murdered Col Ghaddafi, didnt she?

Also she has been throwing plenty of serious weaponry the way of dogmatic religious loons in Syria.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
Last edited:

Fr. Hank Tree

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
5,845
does she not think much of dogmatic religious loons?
Ratio Et Fides said:
Well she seemed rather fond of such when they murdered Col Ghaddafi, didnt she?

Also she has been throwing plenty of serious weaponry the way of dogmatic religious loons in Syria.
Pawned :lol:

Maybe sit the rest of this out daveL good man.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,190
Pretty flawed OP.

The examples given are pretty problematic. Suggesting an extreme response in the event that Iran used nuclear weapons is not unexpected. What are we thinking - that Trump, or any other US President, would sit back and do nothing in that eventuality?

She was also the Secretary of State that sowed the seeds for the nuclear deal that means that Iran getting weapons is less likely, while relations between the US and Iran improve.

Similarly, the reference to 'paying a price' does not have anything necessarily to do with military policy. Many countries, for example, support sanctions against Russia due to its approach in Ukraine. The idea of expecting countries to 'pay a price' says nothing about military policy. Similarly, strong words against Russia do not suggest any change on military policy - unless you really think she's likely to go to war with Russia.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
The real issue is world peace and nuclear disarmament.

Clinton represents the entrenchment/expansion of all existing US foreign military interests.

Trump is the exact opposite and wishes to drastically curtail US military budgets and make Europe pay its way.

In that sense he would make a safer pair of hands.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,384
It's a pretty serious thing to consider, is it not?

To my mind Clinton is by far the more aggressive of the two. She has voted in favour of every war the US has waged in recent times, including the illegal Iraq invasion.

]Hillary Clinton’s Unapologetically Hawkish Record Faces 2016 Test] | TIME.com

She has also called for a no-fly zone in Syria.



She has also threatened to 'obliterate Iran', should Iran launch a nuclear strike at Israel.

But Iran has never had nuclear weapons, and she knows this.

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran

She has also threatened Russia and China because they 'support the legitimate government of Syria' :roll:

Clinton: Russia and China will 'pay price' for supporting Assad



And she has compared Russia's President: Vladimir Putin, to Hitler



She is also the darling of the American terrorist organisation: the Neoconservatives, whereas they fervently oppose Trump.

Neocon War Hawks Want Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump. No Surprise – They’ve Always Backed Her



Yes, the Neocons, the warmongers supreme, the people behind all of America's disastrous regime change wars that have left hundreds of thousands dead and caused Europe to flood with refugees, they support Hillary.

Here's more opinion: Faber: I'd Vote for Trump Because 'Hillary Clinton Will Destroy the Whole World'



So to Trump, well he has said that the world would be a safer place were Saddam and Ghadaffi still in it ruling their respective countries, which of course it would be.

He has said that he sees no reason why the US can't be an ally of Russia, and Putin agrees.

He has said that the US should not be arming the people that fight Assad, and he's right, and if they had not we may not have had the refugee crisis here in Europe.

He has said that the trillions of US Dollars used to invade Iraq would have been better spent on America, and it clearly would.

And he has said that the US need to end their warmongering in the Middle East, and of course that would be much better for everybody too.

Yet all these sensible positions are frowned upon by the Neocons, who want endless war and destruction, and who support Clinton, and who made this Trump attack video in which they portray his sensible, anti-war positions as a bad thing:

So given all of this info: who do you think is more likely to start WW3, Clinton or Trump?

[video=youtube;73-xpW1tFV8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73-xpW1tFV8[/video]
Trump sounds likes just another dictator ass-licker, the kind that gave us Saddam Hussein, Assad and Gaddafi to start with. The kind fascists prefer.

Apparently, the belief is he dislikes Joos, and maybe he does, that will make him a bigger hero. His solution to Palestine: bribe the Palestinians to move to Puerto Rico. Seriously. Donald Trump: Move the Palestinians to Puerto Rico - The Mideast Beast

That's after he bans Hispanics from all financial transaction with Mexico to stop them sending money to their relatives, so that Mexico will fund the building of a 2,000 mile wall on the border. Also, seriously. Trump Now Wants To Block Immigrants From Sending Money To Their Families | ThinkProgress

Trump is just a plain fool, and a fool with his finger on the nuclear trigger is not something that is anybody's interests.

Clinton is NOT a neoconservative - how come she was an architect of the Iran nuclear agreement, the one neocons and Israel hate? The OP is a plain crock of one-sides biased commentary.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
If its Trump vs Clinton its quite likely that Clinton will win all 50 states in November.
 

maxflinn

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
5,275
Pretty flawed OP.

The examples given are pretty problematic. Suggesting an extreme response in the event that Iran used nuclear weapons is not unexpected. What are we thinking - that Trump, or any other US President, would sit back and do nothing in that eventuality?
It was unnecessary aggression. She knew Iran had no such weapons.

She was also the Secretary of State that sowed the seeds for the nuclear deal that means that Iran getting weapons is less likely, while relations between the US and Iran improve.
She recently described all Iranians as: her enemies.

Hillary Clinton's Disturbing Comments Calling Iranians Her "Enemies"

Similarly, the reference to 'paying a price' does not have anything necessarily to do with military policy. Many countries, for example, support sanctions against Russia due to its approach in Ukraine. The idea of expecting countries to 'pay a price' says nothing about military policy. Similarly, strong words against Russia do not suggest any change on military policy - unless you really think she's likely to go to war with Russia.
It was more misplaced, needless aggression, and for what, because Russia and China didn't support the Wahhabist terrorists being used to overthrow another Middle-Eastern country's government?

If Putin declared that the US must pay a price for something similar, it would be headline news all over the world and he would be touted as worse than Hitler.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,190
It was unnecessary aggression. She knew Iran had no such weapons.



She recently described all Iranians as: her enemies.

Hillary Clinton's Disturbing Comments Calling Iranians Her "Enemies"



It was more misplaced, needless aggression, and for what, because Russia and China didn't support the Wahhabist terrorists being used to overthrow another Middle-Eastern country's government?

If Putin declared that the US must pay a price for something similar, it would be headline news all over the world and he would be touted as worse than Hitler.
Grand - your objection then is to her foreign policy approach.

The notion that any of this amounts to a military policy or approach is nonsense.
 

cunnyfunt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
6,414
Excellent thread Max; you have really illustrated to the clownish paddies who think they are being sophisticated by supporting Hilary what a monster she is and how mistaken they are.

Agreed. Anyone who tries to say nothing wrong in their election campaign, someone who has all the politically correct answers on tap, should be avoided like the plague.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
Grand - your objection then is to her foreign policy approach.

The notion that any of this amounts to a military policy or approach is nonsense.
Foreign policy is linked to military policy in all normal states.
The USA is no exception.

Trumps foreign policy will be trade based on the globalized economy.
He would seriously curtail US military spending.

Clintons foreign policy is stuck in the defunct post WW2 cold war anti soviet model.
She will blunder on the same reckless manner that OBama has with the horrific results in the Middle East now visible to the entire world
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top