11-28-2016, 12:41 PM
(11-28-2016, 12:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(11-25-2016, 04:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The problem with "Clinton meant war while Trump did not," is that Trump's foreign policy is far more dangerous. It is just as dangerous to leave the door open for a tyrant to invade; that's called appeasement. What makes it worse in Trump's case is that he is quick to turn on erstwhile allies. Any betrayal, and he attacks. That would happen if Putin perceives that it is allowed by Trump to attack a NATO country like Estonia, which harbors a large Russian population. If Putin did attack, Trump would cry betrayal and declare war. Trump's statements that more countries should have nuclear weapons, his advocacy of war crimes and his appointment of a war criminal as his advisor, and his promise to provide himself with more and bigger war toys, are just more of the dangers of the Trump presidency. Whereas Hillary was an experienced and talented diplomat who knows when to back off from a confrontation, without allowing tyrants' ambitions to run wild.
All I can do is hope the astrological cycle I discovered holds true, and the USA is not going out on another adventure until Jupiter returns to its place in our American horoscope again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoeW5fXJYU
It's not due until 2025-26.
If the cycle holds, then it didn't matter which one was elected. We are not going to war.
We just had the latest return as we went off to help in Syria, almost bombing it, and then to fight the IS in Iraq and Syria.
Cracks me up to see Dew and other latter day "Rightists" preaching appeasement. WTF ever happened to "peace through strength" and the bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression that we used to see from The Right? Heck, we even saw it from the likes of JFK!!!
Got any examples of "bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression" from the Cold War? JFK pulled our IRBMs from Turkey to get the Soviets to pull theirs from Cuba; we got rolled back as much as them. In Cuba it was obviously not the Soviets that got rolled back with Castro and the Bay of Pigs. The Vietnam War obviously did not roll anything back.
The closest thing to a rollback was our facilitating the quagmire that the Soviets got themselves into in Afghanistan, and even that did not involve direct confrontation between U.S. and Soviet troops the way Clinton threatened with Russia. Reagan may have achieved strategic rollbacks, but was always very careful to avoid military confrontation, to the point of withdrawing in the case of Lebanon.
"Peace through strength" requires both strength and the idea that peace is the goal. Clinton's policies included neither; the policy of today's left - or at least the Democratic establishment - is closer to "war through weakness".