Did We Unknowingly Elect Hillary?

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for reminding. Sometimes I click post, wait nothing happens. Then click again and double happens. Oops I deleted the wrong one, so your replyUP won't work

He already said explicitly "I want the oil in the Middle East; belongs to America"
==> this was my free interpretation of the 45sec. I did not remember exactly after a few month
[I have not photographic memory, listening again it was not far off, just a bit different wording]

If not providing an inference instead of a quote, it really shouldn't be in quotation marks.
That indicates an exact quote. It smelled funny, so I questioned it. This happens a lot
with Trump.

Taking oil so that ISIS can't get it makes it a political & military goal rather than financial.
So now I gave you the video. If you think what D.T says in the video is correct then we think 180 degrees different on this.
This is very bad IMO . So let's agree to disagree on this one

And ISIS is angry for a reason. Like Kim is angry for a reason. USA did drop a view bombs around the world
They have not been saints always [same with Holland; so karma is a *****, even if you don't believe in it]
People just don't forget those things so easily. They hate USA and Europe very much.
I am surprised not more incidents happen.

I think we bomb too many people around the world these days.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whatever the reason or rationalization, it would be a war crime. You cannot invade another country and take their natural resources.

I don't think it's a good idea either....both wrong & impractical.
But we should get it right when we criticize.
Challenge suspicious quotations.

And I would have to hunt down the quote, but Trump did talk about talking the oil to offset the cost of the war.

I recall something like that too.
I agree this would be wrong.
But I note also that we're not doing it.

Trump strikes me as shooting from the hip, ie, not giving what he says due consideration.
So I don't know if he really intended to take the oil as compensation or wasn't serious
(more of a thinking out loud, like Homer Simpson). With our system of government,
the results often appear better than his intentions.

 

[suncowiam]

It's OK with me to discuss her.
But your objection to it seems obsessive.

Hillary is relevant because of her hawkish record, particularly towards Iran.
And now Trump is channelling her. That inspired the title of the thread.

I understand your sensitivity towards Hillary.
But do you have any thoughts on Trump's handling of Iran?

Speaking of how subjectively this can be seen as obsessive...

Why is someone even bringing her up to begin with?

Why not just discuss the actions of Trump solely based on him and his team?

You don't see the irony in this? Probably not.

I'll tell you what. I'll stop talking about Hillary but if you bring her up again in a different thread, then it's game on again.

Anyhows...

Trump is posturing. He's not as passive as Obama. It's a high stake game of poker. He could win or lose. I don't know. I prefer a person to stand their ground but that is just a preference. I hope he does these things based on calculations as opposed to instincts. Maybe he has a team of psychologists and cultural experts to give him a green light before lighting up twitter. Or maybe, he just acts on his instincts without processing the outcome. My guess is the latter.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

Trump threatens Iran with.....
"To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES
AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW
THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER
A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE
& DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"
The above quote is from....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html

After Hillary threatened during the campaign to "obliterate Iran", it seems that
Trump is now channelling her hostility. This occurs with his reneging on the
nuclear agreement, his imposing new economic sanctions, & threatening allies
to coerce them to go along. I can't think of a better way to inspire Iran to want
nuclear weapons.


For those who don't already know, some historical highlights....
1953: We interfered with their election (OK when we do it to others) by having
the CIA stage a coup to overthrow an elected leader in order to install The Shah.
1980-88: We Supplied Iraq with military assistance (including WMDs, eg, chemical
weapons, biological weapons) in an unprovoked attack. Around a million Iranians
died in this conflict.
1988: We shoot down Iranian commercial airliner (Flight 655), killing 290 people.
It was an Airbus 300, which in no way resembles the F-14 we identified it as.

It's pretty clear that Iran has suffered greatly at our hands. From their perspective,
we cannot be trusted to be peaceful towards them, especially given Israel's hatred
for Iran, Israel's penchant for pre-emptive military attacks, & Israel's overwhelming
influence upon Americastanian leadership. To become a nuclear power would appear
to be the best way to fend off future US attacks.

War with Iran wouldn't benefit anyone (except Israel), including Trump.
(The economic costs of war would reduce his real estate equity.)
How is all this saber rattling putting Americastan 1st?

Maybe Trump wants to take a gab at America's favorite past time. Killing brown people in the middle east.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatever the reason or rationalization, it would be a war crime. You cannot invade another country and take their natural resources.

And I would have to hunt down the quote, but Trump did talk about talking the oil to offset the cost of the war.

It sounds like you want to take all of the fun out of going to war.

On a serious note, I don't know why @Revoltingest would have thought that Trump would be any less likely to go to war than Hillary. I did not trust either in that regard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe Trump wants to take a gab at America's favorite past time. Killing brown people in the middle east.

Iranians aren't all that brown.

 

[Revoltingest]

I

On a serious note, I don't know why @Revoltingest would have thought that Trump would be any less likely to go to war than Hillary. I did not trust either in that regard.

Were you not aware that Hillary (in Congress)
voted to start one war, & to continue both wars?
Trump was at least an unknown quantity, having
no political record.

I can understand people disagreeing with the above,
but it's odd that very few acknowledge it. Tis an
aversion to examining negative aspects of her record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Were you not aware that Hillary (in Congress)
voted to start one war, & to continue both wars?
Trump was at least an unknown quantity, having
no political record.

I can understand people disagreeing with the above,
but it's odd that very few acknowledge it. Tis an
aversion to examining negative aspects of her record.

An unknown quantity does not give me much hope when his personality is known.

 

[Revoltingest]

An unknown quantity does not give me much hope when his personality is known.

Which explains why some went with Hillary.
Perhaps instead of "the lesser of 2 evils", it was
"better the evil I know, than the evil I don't".

What do you think our policy should be towards Iran?

 

[fantome profane]

Iranians aren't all that brown.

But de tak funy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which explains why some went with Hillary.
Perhaps instead of "the lesser of 2 evils", it was
"better the evil I know, than the evil I don't".

What do you think our policy should be towards Iran?

One of cautious diplomacy with the only threat being an economic one. No need for warfare.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But de tak funy.

Good enough. Nuke 'em.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of cautious diplomacy with the only threat being an economic one. No need for warfare.

Do you think an economic threat is necessary?
Do you think they have a right to retaliate with equal measure of effect?

I think some reparations for the million deaths at our hand
(by proxy) in the Iraq v Iran war would be better & cheaper
than the probability-adjusted cost of sanctions & war.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think an economic threat is necessary?
Do you think they have a right to retaliate with equal measure of effect?

I think some reparations for the million deaths at our hand
(by proxy) in the Iraq v Iran war would be better & cheaper
than the probability-adjusted cost of sanctions & war.

That was a hot mess. We were not the only outside influence and both sides were guilty of atrocities. There is no way to judge who should pay whom.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why is Hillary referenced?

That part makes no sense to me.

There's reasonable speculation that she's not completely out of the picture yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

That was a hot mess. We were not the only outside influence and both sides were guilty of atrocities. There is no way to judge who should pay whom.

We supplied Iraq with military assistance, including WMDs.
If we do such a thing, and just say both of their sides are to
blame, then Iran definitely needs nuclear weapons.

 

[Stevicus]

Trump initiated the conflagration by ditching the nuclear
deal with Iran, replacing that with economic sanctions.

The angry rhetoric between the US and Iran has been going on a lot longer. For as long as I can remember, they've been saying "Death to America" and calling us the "Great Satan."

Her famous threat to "obliterate Iran" was about Israel, not Russia.

That may be so, but that's beside the point. US hostility towards Iran could have been met with a Russian response, regardless of our motives. As long as we (that is, Hillary and Obama) maintained a hostile, aggressive attitude towards Russia, our hands were tied in dealing with Iran. By forging friendlier ties with Russia, that will take Russia out of the picture and give us a freer hand to deal with Iran.

We needn't end the region's squabbling.
But we can certainly work to avoid exacerbating it.

True...or we can just stay out of the region completely and let them solve their own problems.

 

[suncowiam]

There's reasonable speculation that she's not completely out of the picture yet.

Let's assume that she's still running, what then does she have to do with this current situation?

Obviously, we did not unintentionally elect Hillary to office. We elected Trump. He takes all the responsibility of what happens, good or bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

The angry rhetoric between the US and Iran has been going on a lot longer. For as long as I can remember, they've been saying "Death to America" and calling us the "Great Satan."

That view glosses over a major change under way.
Lord help us if I need to point it out again.
As for the rhetoric you mention, remember that they only talk of our death.
But we actually cause theirs in massive numbers (using the very kind of
WMDs which we decry when used by others).
(And talk about election meddling, we've been far far worse than Russia.)
One must learn to see past the venom, & look for a resolution to the conflict.
Or else we're doomed to repeat a very violent history, one which could become nuclear.

That may be so....

"May be"?
Definitely.

US hostility towards Iran could have been met with a Russian response, regardless of our motives. As long as we (that is, Hillary and Obama) maintained a hostile, aggressive attitude towards Russia, our hands were tied in dealing with Iran. By forging friendlier ties with Russia, that will take Russia out of the picture and give us a freer hand to deal with Iran.

We needn't use Russia as an excuse to threaten Iran with war.

True...or we can just stay out of the region completely and let them solve their own problems.

At this stage, that's politically impossible, what with Israel's having so much influence here.
No one in the Big Two will risk standing up to them.
No third party will ever gain that much power.

 

[Sunstone]

@Sunstone , I sure 'hope' you are wrong about this.

Me too. But I no longer trust our leaders to do the sensible or right thing.