Did We Unknowingly Elect Hillary?

[sun rise]

You excuse war mongery because it was popular.

I know it's amazing to some pacifists, but I'm not a pacifist. Sometimes war is necessary but not very often. A nuclear attack on another nation is a casus belli. And if voting for a war by mistake is a rationale for voting against someone, then vote for me because I never voted to go to war.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know it's amazing to some pacifists, but I'm not a pacifist. Sometimes war is necessary but not very often. A nuclear attack on another nation is a casus belli. And if voting for a war by mistake is a rationale for voting against someone, then vote for me because I never voted to go to war.

One doesn't repeatedly vote for war by mistake.
To state the intent to "totally obliterate Iran", this
is a call for more than war. It sounds more like
mass killing for its own sake...not merely winning
a war or regime change.
Of course, our system wouldn't allow that (I hope),
even if she really did intend it. But it still speaks to
her predilections exhibited in her record.

Spoiler: Bad joke

Are you one of the "dogs of war"?

 

[columbus]

One doesn't repeatedly vote for war by mistake.

Yes, actually people do, sometimes. Especially when virtually the entire government is bent on lying about it.

To state the intent to "totally obliterate Iran", this
is a call for more than war. It sounds more like
mass killing for its own sake...not merely winning
a war or regime change.

Here's what she actually said:

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliteratethem," Clinton said. "That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

Where do you find mass killing for it's own sake?
Tom

 

[Stevicus]

That view glosses over a major change under way.
Lord help us if I need to point it out again.

Yeah, but the more things change, the more they stay the same.

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).

When did we use WMDs on Iran? The only reason Iran could only talk about our death was because they didn't have much in the way of military capability to attack us.

(And talk about election meddling, we've been far far worse than Russia.)

Indeed, but try telling that to the Russia-bashers who think Russia is the Evil Empire and the USA is the White Knight to save the world.

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.

Yes, although I'd be more worried about Russia's or China's nukes than anything Iran could do.

Of course, part of finding resolution to conflict also means compromise - and it could mean having to share a bit of the wealth and resources of the world. That's where capitalism fails, since they don't like to share anything.

"May be"?
Definitely.

But it's still beside the point.

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

We wouldn't be using them as an excuse. If we threaten Iran with war, then Russia could be a potential adversary if they see a US invasion of Iran as a threat to their security. If we can find a way to pacify Russia and convince them that a US attack on Iran would not be a threat to them, then we'd have a free hand in dealing with Iran - if that's what we want to do. That is, if we're soooooo worried about Iran and what kind of "threat" they can cause to the United States, then there are steps we can take to deal with that threat (if there is such a threat).

If not, then our only other alternative is to go to the Iranians, hat in hand, and ask them really, really nicely if they wouldn't mind not using nukes against Israel or anyone else. That might work.

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.

I've heard this before, the idea that the powerful Israeli lobby is like the tail wagging the dog. I'm not sure how much of it is true or how much is conspiracy theory.

Still, the main reasons we got involved in the Middle East in the first place had to do with the fact that our allies (mainly Britain and France) could no longer hold hegemony in their former colonies and client states. The possibility of the Soviets moving in to fill the power vacuum, along with worries about the Suez Canal and the oil reserves of the region falling into Soviet hands - that's what brought us into the Middle East in the first place.

Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, the original reasons for US involvement in the region are no longer relevant. It's unlikely that Russia would want to bog themselves down with trying to invade the Middle East, but even if they did, let them deal with all the headaches and expense of trying to control an uncontrollable region. What's it to us?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, actually people do, sometimes. Especially when virtually the entire government is bent on lying about it.

Even if you were correct, it still spells war mongery.
If one makes the same mistake over & over again with multiple
wars, a pattern emerges. It portends more such mistakes.

Here's what she actually said:

I know the full quote.
It might be comforting to you, but not to those who see her as a hawk.
Suppose Israel attacks Iran, & Iran counter-attacks.
There's too great a risk that fervently pro-Israel would over-react.

Where do you find mass killing for it's own sake?
Tom

It's in the "totally obliterate Iran" quote, & her statement that
Iranians themselves are among her greatest enemies.

I realize that such bellicose talk appeals to many conservatives.
So they minimize her words, lest they face what they're capable
of. But I'm not a conservative. I see things very differently.
I oppose such fire & brimstone biblical retaliation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, but the more things change, the more they stay the same.

That sounds defeatist.
I don't believe that we're doomed to forever live in a world full of
so much violent conflict. Where it can be reduced, I favor that.

When did we use WMDs on Iran?

During the Iraq v Iran war, we supplied WMDs & other military assistance to Iraq (our proxy).
Ref...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_War

Yes, although I'd be more worried about Russia's or China's nukes than anything Iran could do.

One set of risks being greater than another doesn't eliminate the latter.
If we continue attacking Iran, this could escalate problems....
- They could be inspired to use unconventional warfare to greatly harm us, eg, 9/11.
- They are incentivized to develop a nuclear defense, thus becoming as great a threat as China or Russia.

Of course, part of finding resolution to conflict also means compromise - and it could mean having to share a bit of the wealth and resources of the world. That's where capitalism fails, since they don't like to share anything.

Capitalism gives us the strongest economy in the world.
Government already freely gives away money, & spends vast sums attacking other
countries. Plus, we owe Iran war reparations for the massive deaths at our hand
(by proxy), particularly because we supplied bio & chem WMDs. Think "war crimes".
Is it any wonder their government hates ours?

We paid (token amount) Iran for the 260 people we killed shooting down a commercial
airliner. So payment for the far greater number of war dead would is perfectly doable.
Note though:
- Americastan never admitted legal liability for shooting down the Airbus 300.
- Americastan never apologized for killing 260 people.
- Americastan awarded medals to officers of the USS Vincennes

But it's still beside the point.

Because were it the point, you'd have to admit the error?

I've heard this before, the idea that the powerful Israeli lobby is like the tail wagging the dog. I'm not sure how much of it is true or how much is conspiracy theory.

I see no conspiracy.
Just massive influence.

 

[Koldo]

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?

Do you mean he is acting in a way that you didn't expect ?
Neither of us expected him to start a war, but you certainly knew he would be a diplomatic nightmare, right ?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you mean he is acting in a way that you didn't expect ?

It's inconsistent with his placing Americastan's interests first.
This does not serve our interests at all.

Neither of us expected him to start a war, but you certainly knew he would be a diplomatic nightmare, right ?

I didn't expect either candidate to start a war.
But each posed such a risk.
I expected unpredictability in Trump, particularly since....
- He had no political experience or record by which to judge his future behavior.
- He is autocratic, & not a careful person.

But as a diplomatic nightmare, it remains to be seen what will result.
I don't care about how people feel about him. Only results matter.
So far, I dislike his entire approach foreign policies (economic, military, social).

 

[Koldo]

It's inconsistent with his placing Americastan's interests first.
This does not serve our interests at all.

It is important to understand he meant it in his own perspective.
In his perspective, he is putting America first.

I didn't expect either candidate to start a war.
But each posed such a risk.
I expected unpredictability in Trump, particularly since....
- He had no political experience or record by which to judge his future behavior.
- He is autocratic, & not a careful person.

But as a diplomatic nightmare, it remains to be seen what will result.
I don't care about how people feel about him. Only results matter.
So far, I dislike his entire approach foreign policies (economic, military, social).

I said 'nightmare', not 'hell'.
The relationship between USA and many of its allies is worse off than before.
Trump is unable to tread carefully and ends up creating a lot of discomfort, but that was to be expected, wasn't it ?

 

[Stevicus]

That sounds defeatist.
I don't believe that we're doomed to forever live in a world full of
so much violent conflict. Where it can be reduced, I favor that.

I favor it, too, although my observation has been that even if we manage to find peace with one nation or government, there's still fallout and new enemies cropping up in the aftermath. Peace is only a temporary lull.

One set of risks being greater than another doesn't eliminate the latter.
If we continue attacking Iran, this could escalate problems....
- They could be inspired to use unconventional warfare to greatly harm us, eg, 9/11.
- They are incentivized to develop a nuclear defense, thus becoming as great a threat as China or Russia.

Well, as I said earlier, we don't have any territorial claims on Iran, and the only real cause for conflict would be if Iran aggressively attacked another nation. We have no reason to attack them militarily. When we sided with Iraq, that was just after the Iranians took over our embassy and held our people hostage (which many people were just as angry about as they were over 9/11). We felt somewhat justified causing pain to Iran by helping Iraq. But after the Iran-Contra thing apparently showed that we could make some deals with Iran, such as they were. Our policy also shifted to concentrate more on Iraq as a threat, while Iran was further out of the picture.

Capitalism gives us the strongest economy in the world.

It also leads to great resentment among the nations which have been exploited and raped by the West and left in nothing but squalor and destitution. It's a large factor in why much of the world still remains in turmoil, racked by conflict and violence.

We might send them aid or whatnot from time to time, but it's only a drop in the bucket and doesn't seem to change anything at all. They're still under the thumb of the major powers and dependent. That's why countries like Iran, North Korea, and others thumb their noses at us. They're trying to show that they don't need us and can do well on their own.

Government already freely gives away money, & spends vast sums attacking other
countries. Plus, we owe Iran war reparations for the massive deaths at our hand
(by proxy), particularly because we supplied bio & chem WMDs. Think "war crimes".
Is it any wonder their government hates ours?

We paid (token amount) Iran for the 260 people we killed shooting down a commercial
airliner. So payment for the far greater number of war dead would is perfectly doable.
Note though:
- Americastan never admitted legal liability for shooting down the Airbus 300.
- Americastan never apologized for killing 260 people.
- Americastan awarded medals to officers of the USS Vincennes

Interesting, although I'm not sure what this has to do with my point.

Because were it the point, you'd have to admit the error?

It wasn't an error (or even if it was, it was so minor as to not even be noteworthy). It's still beside the point, though.

I see no conspiracy.
Just massive influence.

I don't know that it's Israel itself that has the influence, or if it comes from domestic political factions which are primarily Christian. The right-wing (you know, the capitalist wing) seems to be the most hawkish in this area, and they seem to be the most influential when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is important to understand he meant it in his own perspective.
In his perspective, he is putting America first.

I agree with you.
I disagree with him.

I said 'nightmare', not 'hell'.
The relationship between USA and many of its allies is worse off than before.
Trump is unable to tread carefully and ends up creating a lot of discomfort, but that was to be expected, wasn't it ?

I'm not so concerned with worsening relationships with allies.
We may still cooperate where it makes sense, & relations will
(likely) improve with subsequent presidents.
It's how we inspire our foes which is crucial, ie, war or no war.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting, although I'm not sure what this has to do with my point.

You forgot that you posted this?

Of course, part of finding resolution to conflict also means compromise - and it could mean having to share a bit of the wealth and resources of the world. That's where capitalism fails, since they don't like to share anything.

There is precedent for our paying reparations.
And we can afford it.
Criminy, we might be unable to afford not doing it.

 

[Stevicus]

You forgot that you posted this?

There is precedent for our paying reparations.
And we can afford it.
Criminy, we might be unable to afford not doing it.

No, I didn't forget I posted that, but I wasn't talking about reparations.

 

[fantome profane]

I think the answer to the title question is no.

No, you most certainly did not elect a qualified caring woman who had dedicated most of her life to the service of others.

 

[Revoltingest]

...you most certainly did not elect a qualified caring woman who had dedicated most of her life to the service of others.

If one had run, I might've voted for her.

 

[Underhill]

I called him a "loose cannon" from the beginning.
It seems you're just now discovering the term.

Btw, age isn't relevant here. Young'ns can get angry
& especially behave badly too. So making it about
age is a distraction from the issue (as would be race
& gender). But religion...that is a factor.

Age can be a factor if it's found he has some age related mental disorder. He certainly shows some of the signs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Age can be a factor if it's found he has some age related mental disorder. He certainly shows some of the signs.

Youth is an age related disorder too.
(I should know, I once had it. But I recovered.)
But is it appropriate to make it about a stereotype?

 

[Underhill]

Youth is an age related disorder too.
(I should know, I once had it. But I recovered.)
But is it appropriate to make it about a stereotype?

It is when behavior is this bad and inconsistent with his behavior as a younger man.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is when behavior is this bad and inconsistent with his behavior as a younger man.

Sounds like you're trying to change the subject away from your ageism.

 

[Cougarbear]

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?

Cougarbear: Another liberal putting down their own Country. Just like Obama did for 8 years. Pathetic.
It's pretty clear Iran has threatened Israel (little satan) and the U.S. (big satan) with complete destruction. I could therefore care less how Iran has suffered greatly. The current leaders in Iran have to be taken down and out. And, that won't take that long to do it.
What was obvious is Iran wasn't that close to getting a nuclear bomb. That's why they agreed to the deal with Obama. They were able to get 150 billion dollars freed up to use to build the bomb in about 8 years when the deal is up. And, Hillary and Obama knew this. Obama and Hillary wanted Iran to get the nuclear bomb. That is obvious to any rational logical thinker.