2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Suryavarman wrote: »

Do you support oppressive dictators? Because it's looking like you do. It's easy for us to sit at home and give easy answers and pretend that war is always wrong. If people like you had a say in the matter the USA would never have entered WWII. You obviously find it easy to turn a blind eye to oppressive regimes and pretend everything is rosy. Some people believe there is a moral imperative to use military force to topple tyrannical regimes. Those people realise that as bad as wars are, sometimes they're better than doing nothing and leaving people suffer just because they're half a world away.

Clinton has favoured intervention in the past and it has not gone well. At least there's a chance that she has learned from her mistakes and won't repeat them. Compare that to Trump who is incapable of learning from his mistakes because he doesn't admit to making them. Compare that to Trump who openly supports committing war crimes. Compare that to Trump who wants to murder the families of terrorists and use torture. Compare that to Trump who wants to pull out of NATO and allow Putin free reign to invade a host of Eastern European countries. Compare that to Trump that wants to turn his back on allies and make the world a markedly less safe place.

That you could favour Trump over Clinton on the basis of foreign policy is truly remarkable.

Do I support oppressive dictators, you ask?
Yes I do and this is how I reached this position.
I use to think democracy was the answer, and for most countries it is.
Now lets look at some sample cases:
Iraq: I believed Saddam was an awful leader and he was, but do I believe removing him at the cost of around a half million lives, turning it into a terrorist haven has made things better for Iraq? No I don't. I was against the war and people are still dying from that decision to invade Iraq. Lies were used to invade the country.
Libya: Gadaffi was not a nice person, but he was working with the west on terrorism and had destroyed his chemical and biological weapons. There was plenty of evidence that Benghazi was a terrorist haven before Obama agreed to Hillary's wishes and started bombing Libya. I remember watching a video of AQ in Benghazi executing by beheading a black mercenary who they said supported Gaddafi. Then I asked myself 'why would anyone want to help save these people from Gaddafi when there are thousands out supporting the terrorists. It is no wonder the Pentagon was against the madness that Hillary pushed for, or as Obama calls it the ****-show.
Syria: Under Assad Muslims and Christians and other faiths lived peacefully together, until countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar helped start an uprising against a leader they hate. Assad is another person who is not nice but he did not discriminate against people based on their religion, Saddam in Iraq was the same and had a Christian -Tariq Aziz in his government. All these wars have extremists targeting Chrisitians, Shia Muslims and other minorities by Sunni Muslim extremists. Choosing to remove Assad is from a position of pure ignorance or a want to have genocide against minorities. Democracy is worth nothing if it is done from the point of view that democracy is the solution and the only right thing to support.
Egypt: Egypt was better under Mubarak. They removed him, tried democracy and it was a disaster. The Muslim Brotherhood are declared a terrorist group by a number of countries and for good reason. In Egypt they had encouraged attacks on Christians. They wanted to introduce Sharia law. We had the Halawas over in Egypt actively supporting the terrorists who had killed over 800 Christians, destroyed churches before the army had their coup to stop the genocide that would have followed if they had done nothing. Some people cried: 'but the MB are democratically elected'. It only matters if you think democracy is more important that preserving life. The coup stopped further massacres of Coptic Christians in Egypt on mass scale and brought some sense of stability to what is a very unstable part of the world.

I have changed opinion from what I see, from what I have read and there is a reason why the Pentagon and why Obama was against the invasion of Iraq, was not for the bombing of Libya but let Hillary have her way and why he did not try and remove Assad. The evidence is it only makes things worse.
I believe my views are on the right side of history and Hillary has been on the side of death and destruction and no solution to the mess she contributed to.
Clinton learned nothing from Libya, she was all for making the same destructive decision when it came to Syria and criticised Obama for not not bombing Assad out of power.
Clinton is the same disaster she has always been on foreign policy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're setting out to prove my point for me, you're doing a bang-up job.

Yes, Trump has referred to "stupid wars". He has also expressed his support for those wars. And now we have the spectacle of you criticising Hillary Clinton for supporting the same wars as Trump, because you have that most astonishing of Trump supporters' abilities: you literally pretend he hasn't said anything that contradicts your beliefs.

You seem to be happy to support Trump because he has taken pretty much every conceivable position on pretty much every conceivable question at some point, and you're comfortable with cherry-picking the times he has said things you agree with.

I mean, come on: he took three positions on the minimum wage in a recent interview; two of them in the same sentence. It is beyond me how you can support the man, because you have literally not the faintest idea what he might or might not do as president. How could you? He doesn't appear to.

I said that he's batsh*t crazy. I wasn't using the term for effect; I genuinely think he has psychiatric problems. You don't seem to care whether or not that's true; you merely parrot the phrase "batsh*t crazy" to describe positions you disagree with.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to change your mind. If you're a Trump supporter, that pretty much means that you're not amenable to being persuaded by facts, logic or reason. After all, he is untroubled by such trivia, so why should his supporters be?

I know for definite that a Clinton presidency is a war presidency.
Trump may lie saying he didn't support the Iraq war and whatever else, but I care about what he believes now. It does seem he learned from them.
I see nothing of the sort with Hillary, which to me makes her far more dangerous on foreign policy.
Russia supported Assad and today I see both Russia and Assad are opening up safe corridors for people to get out of Allepo.
Given the terrorist situation in Syria which was there when Clinton wanted to remove Assad, I don't know what she was thinking in believing removing Assad would make things better. Total lunacy that Obama was not going to touch.

Trump has been consistent on not wanting to waste money on wars that are not needed. He knows the fight against terrorists has to continue but not the sort of crap that Hillary supports which to me makes her bat**** crazy.

The thing is Johnson or Stein haven't a hope in the election. So it makes it Clinton or Trump, only one of them seems to have changed their stance on the use of the military and go not makes things worse and it is not Hillary.
I bet Obama is sorry for that day he listened to her and agreed to bomb Libya. Obama learned from that experience, Hillary didn't and that should worry everyone.

The most issues are life and death issues and Hillary for me is on the wrong side of them all. The Bernie Sanders supporter who called her the war queen and dangerous is correct.

Black Swan wrote: »

Donald Trump was in favour of intervention in Libya back at the same time, although he keeps flip-flopping today. Trump immediately before the intervention said (quote):
""on a humanitarian basis, immediately go into Libya, knock this guy out very quickly, very surgically, very effectively, and save the lives."

Well Hillary laughed as she said "we came, we saw, he died", being the sick woman she is she laughed as she would have probably known he was sodomised by a knife before he was killed.
What kind of a sick person would laugh at that.

It would have been better if it had been a surgical strike than to die the way he did. Better still have what the Pentagon was advising as public knowledge.

RobertKK wrote: »

It would have been better if it had been a surgical strike than to die the way he did. Better still have what the Pentagon was advising as public knowledge.

Indeed... However strategically an assassination-by-tomahawk probably would not have been strategically better.

The intervention was to impede the very likely annihilation of Benghazi.
Had the Colonel been dispatched, then he would have been succeeded and the humanitarian catastrophe probably would have proceeded anyway by his successor.

Trumps hindsight here seems like it is in a vacuum.
And strategically wouldn't have achieved the goals of the mission.

RobertKK wrote: »

People seem to forget that Hillary had access to far more information than what Trump received when it came to Libya, Iraq and so on.
Hillary was told by the Pentagon that it was not a good idea to remove Gaddafi. Trump watched the news like the rest of us.

Surely it shows the person who had the most information and who was given advice and ignored it makes Hillary Clinton's position far worse on foreign policy. It is unbelievable how much she got wrong, and what is worse to not learn anything from it, proven by her bomb Syria/Assad which she wanted.

Are Clinton supporters so caught up in the media making out Trump to be the danger, that they fail to see the danger that Hillary Clinton poses?

How would the Pentagon or more information help Trump? You have already posted a quote from Trump that he would not listen to advisors with regarda to foreign affairs.

RobertKK wrote: »

I am dodging nothing.

I have listened to Trump, he supports some stuff I disagree with like enhanced interrogation.
Watching his press conference right now, he said by rebuilding the military it means increasing the number of fighter jets, as they don't have enough for current operations.
Basically for the size of the military they don't have enough hardware.

He has been asked a lot of questions about Putin and Russia, he said he never met or talked to Putin or being to Russia.
He asked the question why does the US and Russia have to have bad relations, wouldn't it better to be friends and work more closely together to fight ISIS.

Trump was asked about foreign affairs advisors, he said he has been asked about such an advisor or this other advisor, he said they all supported the Iraq war and these people would have been better off going to the beach than advising people to invade Iraq, and he doesn't want advisors who promoted failed foreign policy.

Here is the post. Last paragraph.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The real problem with Hillary is we can't trust her at her word. We know she had an interest in continuing the policies of the Bush administration

Rubbish.

Republicans will over turn ObamaCare.

The republicans want to ban all forms of abortion.

Republicans wont even discuss gun control.

Republicans will ban gay marriage.

She has absolutely no similaritiy with bush in any way at all.

Billy86 wrote: »

What about the lies that have found him on trial for multiple counts of defrauding the American public of millions and millions of dollars?

At some point the subject of his taxes are going to come up.

He's going to have to release them or face massive backlash.