Trump: Clinton's foreign policy plan would start WWIII

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, jimmyyy said:

you have no idea what her husband has ordered when he was in office.  Seriously, stop right there.  I am no fan of trump either, but you are clueless what has happened. 

I'm not saying the Pentagon brass will be thrilled with Hillary Clinton as president; I'm saying they would prefer her to someone who orders them to commit war crimes.

 

Are you aware that it is illegal for a member of the US military to obey an illegal order?  Is Trump aware of this?

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, jimmyyy said:

nothing vague here, believe me its real.  She knows it.  Ever fly with her, or were on a base that she was forced to sleep the night on.  It will come out if she is elected.  She hates soldiers.

 

Vague as it comes. Nothing concrete, all insinuated.

And no, I never flew with HRC, or spent the night on the same base. Then again, I'm not the one hinting at things.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

 

At least Hillary Clinton will not order the military to violate the laws of war--torture, executing the families of terrorists, etc.  Trump will give the generals a choice between disobeying their Commander in Chief or committing war crimes.  They should not be put in that position.

 

Allow me to disagree (second time on this topic).

 

HRC is as ruthless as they come. Being POTUS is not a role for the faint of heart, or the too squeamish.

I seriously doubt there was one US president in modern times which did not approve of disagreeable things or commanded them. Comes with the territory.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Morch

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Allow me to disagree (second time on this topic).

 

HRC is as ruthless as they come. Being POTUS is not a role for the faint of heart, or the too squeamish.

I seriously doubt there was one US president in modern times which did not approve of disagreeable things or commanded them. Comes with the territory.

 

I'm sure being POTUS requires ordering disagreeable things.  However how many candidates for the job brag that they will order the military to commit war crimes?

[Reigntax]

I would like to see Bill as the 'first man' only so he can have Monika as his second lady but Bill will need to find a cork so she doesnt shoot her mouth off where he is left to clean up the mess.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

I'm sure being POTUS requires ordering disagreeable things.  However how many candidates for the job brag that they will order the military to commit war crimes?

 

Yeah, well...like I said, not a Trump supporter here. Just pointing out that Trump might say a lot of things, I dunno how many (or which) of them will be on the menu if he gets elected. With HRC, one can be pretty much sure that those things will be carried out. That's not exactly a criticism, as to an extant, I see these things as a necessary evil, and I think HRC will handle it better.

[Publicus]

58 minutes ago, jimmyyy said:

oh trump will have his own problems but hillary was not nice to anyone in the DOD and those memories are very fresh.  I speak from personal experience.  I can say trump has zero history with the DOD, but Hillary oh she has got some history.  I shall keep my opinions to myself and let it play out

 

Even in USA the military commanders need to be whipped in to line.

 

The most high profile post-WW2 decision was by President Truman to fire the five-star Douglas MacArthur, for going to Congress to oppose the CinC rather than to follow his orders. Lincoln fired or advanced on the spot more generals (directly) than all of the CinC combined.

 

President Obama has canned more than a dozen generals or admirals, to include Stanley McChristol who was allied commander in Afghanistan (Petraeus had retired and had to quit as CIA head), and Marine four-star James Cartwright who'd been vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and OB's first choice to become chairman. 

 

Over the decades some certain U.S. Senators have had many issues with military brass and commanders, to include HRC while she'd been U.S. Senator from New York state. HRC had issues with some certain military commanders while she was First Lady and during her tenure as SecState. It's natural and it's normal (although the cake-baking First Ladies don't bother much with things military).

 

Those who might have issues with women and things military may have to get used to the first woman SecDef (Michelle Flournoy) up their nose. And military commanders who walk the straight line much prefer a Truman type as CinC rather than a Caligula.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Publicus
Typo.

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, jimmyyy said:

oh trump will have his own problems but hillary was not nice to anyone in the DOD and those memories are very fresh.  I speak from personal experience.  I can say trump has zero history with the DOD, but Hillary oh she has got some history.  I shall keep my opinions to myself and let it play out

 

I shall keep my opinions to myself

 

Might want to consider trying harder plse thx.

 

All the same credit to you for the rare promise itself.

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, jimmyyy said:

Hillary needs to make peace with the DOD establishment if she does not, she is doomed from the start as they will ensure her downfall.  I realize this is a strong statement but i am comfortable with it.  I look forward to your comments. 

 

Wow, where have you been all these decades while the wingnuts have been slashing away in the bushes hacking up only their feet and legs.

 

You're apparently if not surely the guy the whingenuts have been hunting for -- the guy with the estrogen kryptonite.

 

Do tell us more... 

[Xircal]

12 hours ago, Pimay1 said:

Trump is absolutely right on this one. Even if I was a Clinton supporter I would be against the no fly zone. Shoot down one Russian plane and it would all start.

 

Turkey shot down a Russian fighter and the only consequence was Russia stopped buying any Turkish tomatoes for a while.

 

Shooting down a few more would serve to show Putin that he can't continue committing war crimes by bombing civilians and get away with it.

 

Comparisons between US and Russian hardware illustrates that the Russians aren't up to scratch when it comes to military might: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States/Military

 

[gemini81]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, well...like I said, not a Trump supporter here. Just pointing out that Trump might say a lot of things, I dunno how many (or which) of them will be on the menu if he gets elected. With HRC, one can be pretty much sure that those things will be carried out. That's not exactly a criticism, as to an extant, I see these things as a necessary evil, and I think HRC will handle it better.

Handle what better? More corporate war crimes in sovereign nations?

[simple1]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Your use of "traitor" is  OTT. Granted, it's an election campaign and people tend to get carried away, but it is a slippery slope once sides start referring to each other (or respective leaders) as traitors. One thing the US does not need more of is divisiveness. Bad enough that candidates engage in widening rifts rather than building bridges, don't see the point of giving them a hand.

 

There were quite a few US presidents who led the country to unnecessary (yeah, ain't hindsight great?) conflicts. Would you describe each and every one of them as violating the trust placed in him? Were all of them traitors?

 

Trump has boasted only he has the nouse to solve US issues and only he can 'make America Great Again", don't know if other Presidential candidates made the same claims. Although, it may purely be bluster, don't recall any other US Presidential candidates publicly promising they will act contrary to humanitarian conventions and other appalling claims he has made. Have to wait & see what happens if Trump gains power or if he doesn't, what divisiveness, if any, he will encourage. He may just be full of hot air, if that's the case I'm positive many of his supporters will view him as a traitor / betrayer to their beliefs.

[Cory1848]

12 hours ago, gemini81 said:

So then why support her?!

 

Because she's more than qualified. But neither she, nor anyone else, is going to perfect. If Franklin Roosevelt or Lincoln were running, or if Obama were running for a third term, perhaps I would support them, but that's not an option. Trump is not fit for office. It's an easy decision really.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

Turkey shot down a Russian fighter and the only consequence was Russia stopped buying any Turkish tomatoes for a while.

 

Shooting down a few more would serve to show Putin that he can't continue committing war crimes by bombing civilians and get away with it.

 

Comparisons between US and Russian hardware illustrates that the Russians aren't up to scratch when it comes to military might: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States/Military

 

 

Err...no.

 

Turkey shot down a Russian bomber. The Russians reacted by placing restrictions on Turkish exports (yes, including vegetables) & tourism (that is, Russian tourism in Turkey), and putting a huge question mark over supply of Russian gas to Turkey (previously agreed on at very competitive price). The end result was that Turkey, after much bolstering and posturing - caved in, and promised to behave. No further incidents after that.

 

The "comparison" provided is pretty much irrelevant (and inaccurate). The Russians got a very solid hold in Syria, with some serious air defenses which would challenge any Western attempt to ground Russian airplanes. The US does not have the means to decidedly counter the Russian setup, at least not without it getting very messy. Further, the US is very unlikely to risk a wider conflagration with Russia over Syria. Not even as if the US knows what its goals are in this conflict.

 

Shooting down a few is exactly a gamble that a responsible US president will not take without a very good reason, and without any apparent plan B in case it all goes wrong.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, gemini81 said:

Handle what better? More corporate war crimes in sovereign nations?

 

Anything unsavory which every US president need to deal with. Or, for that matter, any leader of any country.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Trump has boasted only he has the nouse to solve US issues and only he can 'make America Great Again", don't know if other Presidential candidates made the same claims. Although, it may purely be bluster, don't recall any other US Presidential candidates publicly promising they will act contrary to humanitarian conventions and other appalling claims he has made. Have to wait & see what happens if Trump gains power or if he doesn't, what divisiveness, if any, he will encourage. He may just be full of hot air, if that's the case I'm positive many of his supporters will view him as a traitor / betrayer to their beliefs.

 

We do not have an argument with regard to Trump's style, posturing or obvious lack of qualification to fill the role of POTUS. But non of it makes him a traitor. Sides calling each other "traitors" or "the enemy camp" is just another indication of how divisiveness is gnawing at the foundations of everything that made the US. A house divided will not stand. And right now, there's way too much of this from both campaigns.

 

 

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

23 hours ago, Pimay1 said:

Trump is absolutely right on this one. Even if I was a Clinton supporter I would be against the no fly zone. Shoot down one Russian plane and it would all start.

 

For starters, it's a suggestion by HRC.  She's looking at all options.  She seeks (and will continue to seek) counsel from diplomats and top brass.   In contrast, Trump says he knows better than all the generals and, I assume, that includes all admirals and The Joint Chiefs.

 

Trump fans try to put down HRC by saying she will just be an extension of Obama's two terms.  I see that as a good thing.  Overall, Obama's policies have been good, considering the messed up crap he inherited from Bush Jr.

 

BTW, 'no fly' doesn't automatically mean shoot to kill with no warning.  It can mean warning and/or forcibly escort a baddie out of the field.   Also:  Turkey recently shot down a Russian fighter.  It wasn't a no-fly zone (it was a sovereign zone) and it didn't start a war.  Indeed, Turkey and Russia are now bosom buddies again.

 

The US needs cool heads with knowledge and sage advisors.   Trump has none of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

12 hours ago, jimmyyy said:

oh trump will have his own problems but hillary was not nice to anyone in the DOD and those memories are very fresh.  I speak from personal experience.  I can say trump has zero history with the DOD, but Hillary oh she has got some history.  I shall keep my opinions to myself and let it play out

 

DOD is run by adults.  If there were some tiffs between HRC and them, when she was Sec.of State, then so what?  Mature people move on.  In contrast, immature people get angry and hold grudges.  That's Trump. he also acts impulsively, is easy to rile up, in uninformed, easily offended, flip-flopping - all the characteristics of someone who would be awful as Commander in Chief.

[Pimay1]

52 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

For starters, it's a suggestion by HRC.  She's looking at all options.  She seeks (and will continue to seek) counsel from diplomats and top brass.   In contrast, Trump says he knows better than all the generals and, I assume, that includes all admirals and The Joint Chiefs.

 

Trump fans try to put down HRC by saying she will just be an extension of Obama's two terms.  I see that as a good thing.  Overall, Obama's policies have been good, considering the messed up crap he inherited from Bush Jr.

 

BTW, 'no fly' doesn't automatically mean shoot to kill with no warning.  It can mean warning and/or forcibly escort a baddie out of the field.   Also:  Turkey recently shot down a Russian fighter.  It wasn't a no-fly zone (it was a sovereign zone) and it didn't start a war.  Indeed, Turkey and Russia are now bosom buddies again.

 

The US needs cool heads with knowledge and sage advisors.   Trump has none of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please name Trumps advisors and the ones he will choose after he is elected.

[Pinot]

5 minutes ago, Pimay1 said:

Please name Trumps advisors and the ones he will choose after he is elected.

 

Let's start with two prizes Giuliani and Gingrich and it goes downhill from there. 

[Pimay1]

16 minutes ago, Pinot said:

 

Let's start with two prizes Giuliani and Gingrich and it goes downhill from there. 

Just as I figured. You don't have a clue.

[Rob13]

On 10/26/2016 at 11:49 AM, webfact said:

Trump: Clinton's foreign policy plan would start WWIII

 

 

 

And how will Donald's plan be any better??

[Morch]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

 

For starters, it's a suggestion by HRC.  She's looking at all options.  She seeks (and will continue to seek) counsel from diplomats and top brass.   In contrast, Trump says he knows better than all the generals and, I assume, that includes all admirals and The Joint Chiefs.

 

Trump fans try to put down HRC by saying she will just be an extension of Obama's two terms.  I see that as a good thing.  Overall, Obama's policies have been good, considering the messed up crap he inherited from Bush Jr.

 

BTW, 'no fly' doesn't automatically mean shoot to kill with no warning.  It can mean warning and/or forcibly escort a baddie out of the field.   Also:  Turkey recently shot down a Russian fighter.  It wasn't a no-fly zone (it was a sovereign zone) and it didn't start a war.  Indeed, Turkey and Russia are now bosom buddies again.

 

The US needs cool heads with knowledge and sage advisors.   Trump has none of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, posters using Turkey's interception of the Russian bomber, and its aftermath - would be advised to find better examples. Turkey was put in its place very quickly by Russia.

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, Pimay1 said:

Please name Trumps advisors and the ones he will choose after he is elected.

 

Yeah well, he's got advisors with credentials. Doesn't mean their word is gospel, of course. Then there's the question of how much Trump heeds the advice of other people. Judging from the way his campaign is run, perhaps less than he ought to.

 

Here's one relevant example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Flynn

 

Edit: Campaign time advisors are not always those manning the top positions post-elections.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Morch

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, Pimay1 said:

Just as I figured. You don't have a clue.

 

That's a conveniently vague and vacuous summary pronouncement. Not to mention arbitrary.

 

Name names.

 

For instance, where does a Republican potus -- any one of the other 16, not only Trump -- put Mike Huckabee? Secretary of Education would be one leading possibility to get prayer back into schools in one way or another -- even if they have to go up on the roof to do it during lunchtime.

 

And where does any Republican potus put Ben Carson? Maybe ambassador to Egypt so Carson can personally inspect the pyramids.

 

The nutcake Republican party is irretrievably bonkers and it is in fact absent any sane talent or leaders. Further proof is Marco Rubio who says Trump is terrible but supports Trump. Then there's Chris Christie who's fast disappearing. And that's just a couple of 'em.

 

RIP GOP.

 

The Great Republican Train Wreck of 2016.

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, Pimay1 said:

Just as I figured. You don't have a clue.

 

Chris Christie if he isn't busy making license plates?

 

Maybe he could make Chachi secretary of defence.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Chicog

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, Pimay1 said:

Please name Trumps advisors and the ones he will choose after he is elected.

 

Christie (who is heading Trump's transition team).  Note: when Bush Jr appointed Cheney to head a team to pick a VP candidate in 2000, guess who Cheney picked:  Yup, HIMSELF!  Out of thousands of Republican men and women, Cheney decided HE HIMSELF was the best person for the job.   Cheney also got a lot richer as VP, in no small part because he had major investments in companies which supplied the war effort, including Taco Bell, Chevron and Raytheon.   Who says 'war doesn't pay' ?!

 

Christie will probably cajole Trump into appointing him as Attorney General.   Trump surrounds himself with shady and dangerous people.  Gingrich, Ailes, Breithart, Guiliani, ultra hard right gun huggers, Carson, bankrupted businesspeople, Palin, shrill speakers of jibberish, .....to name a few.   Trump likes the type of people who, if any one of them were a 2nd grade teacher at my daughter's school, I would pull her out for home schooling.  They're that bad.

 

2 hours ago, Morch said:

Again, posters using Turkey's interception of the Russian bomber, and its aftermath - would be advised to find better examples. Turkey was put in its place very quickly by Russia.

 

There are scant few recent examples of a fighter jet being shot down, so some of us use the most recent example in Turkey.  BTW, it didn't start a war.  It didn't even spark a skirmish.  Not a shot was fired between Russia and Turkey after the Russkie jet got shot down.   The OP says Trump (every the alarmist) says it would start WWIII.   

[Publicus]

 

The people opposed to a no-fly zone in Syria are running off into the hills and dales about it. 

 

HRC is not talking the same stuff her opponents are in respect of her proposed no-fly zone. The proof of this is in HRC in her own words...

 

 

One of the reasons why I have advocated for a no-fly zone is in order to create those safe refuges within Syria, to try to protect people on the ground both from Assad's forces, who are continuing to drop barrel bombs, and from ISIS," Clinton said.

"ISIS doesn't have aircraft. Al-Qaida doesn't have aircraft. So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian airplane?" Raddatz asked.

Clinton responded by saying, "I do not think it would come to that. We are already de-conflicting air space" with Russian military aircraft.

 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/23/clinton-strikes-hawkish-tone-with-support-for-no-fly-zone-syria.html

 

Putin and Trump are the only guys around here talking about systematically and as military policy bombing civilians in their place -- wherver their place may be. Putin is actually doing it and Trump is drooling to get to do it.

 

HRC is not -- not -- talking about US airpower in Syria roaming around some area or zone looking to shoot down Russian military aircraft. 

 

(Also, beyond the point of a no-fly zone, we need to be accurate about Russian airpower capabilities. For instance, in a single engagement of an hour, a day, a week -- or even a month, Russian military power of any kind is formidable. Over the long term and the long haul, however, it is unsustainable in its quality and in its support base of the Russian economy and also in respect of its population.)

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Again, posters using Turkey's interception of the Russian bomber, and its aftermath - would be advised to find better examples. Turkey was put in its place very quickly by Russia.

 

Erdogan got away completely with the shootdown (by a USAF to Turkey F-16A Fighting Falcon vs a Russian Su-24 fighter-bomber, each of 'em of 1970s vintage).

 

US F-16A Fighting Falcon "Viper" of the Turkish Air Force takes off from Incrilik Air Force Base near the Syria border, December 14, 2015.

 

 

After Erdogan kicked Putin in the balls by doing the shootdown, Putin hollered a lot while he sat in the Kremlin soaking swelled nuts in cold water. During his sitdown the sorehead and wincing Putin pulled some tomatoes and carrots to include some fuel resources off the market to Turkey.

 

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;

 

Now that Putin is bouncing and bounding around again he's been happy to shake hands with his old friend Erdogan. Two nuts together in the same sack. Now however Putin knows who's boss in the tangled relationship. Erdogan came off on top in this one.

[Morch]

51 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Christie (who is heading Trump's transition team).  Note: when Bush Jr appointed Cheney to head a team to pick a VP candidate in 2000, guess who Cheney picked:  Yup, HIMSELF!  Out of thousands of Republican men and women, Cheney decided HE HIMSELF was the best person for the job.   Cheney also got a lot richer as VP, in no small part because he had major investments in companies which supplied the war effort, including Taco Bell, Chevron and Raytheon.   Who says 'war doesn't pay' ?!

 

Christie will probably cajole Trump into appointing him as Attorney General.   Trump surrounds himself with shady and dangerous people.  Gingrich, Ailes, Breithart, Guiliani, ultra hard right gun huggers, Carson, bankrupted businesspeople, Palin, shrill speakers of jibberish, .....to name a few.   Trump likes the type of people who, if any one of them were a 2nd grade teacher at my daughter's school, I would pull her out for home schooling.  They're that bad.

 

 

There are scant few recent examples of a fighter jet being shot down, so some of us use the most recent example in Turkey.  BTW, it didn't start a war.  It didn't even spark a skirmish.  Not a shot was fired between Russia and Turkey after the Russkie jet got shot down.   The OP says Trump (every the alarmist) says it would start WWIII.   

 

There were at least three other international incidents involving shooting down of military aircraft related to this conflict alone. It did not start a war because Russia didn't have to. Turkey was put it its place merely by Russia shutting down trade and making some rumbling noises over gas. Some may wish to check if a similar dynamic would prevail given a hypothetical US-Russian stand-off. I'd rather not go there. Turkey is not a player that can initiate anything like WW, US and Russia are.