Sunday, October 30, 2016

most likely to get us into war

One of the big concerns many voters have is which candidate for President is most apt to get us into a new war or expand the ones Obama has kept going.

Hillary Clinton has shown poor judgment in the past regarding wars where she encouraged Obama to take the side of the rebels in Libya to unseat Qaddafi. No one would deny that he had been a brutal dictator to hold power in his country. His ties to terrorism included blowing up an airliner and harboring terrorists. In 1999 however, he began to change course. He gave up the having nuclear bombs, [did many things for his people], but Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, wanted the rebels to take over Libya despite Qaddafi's warnings that terrorists such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State would take over.  


Clinton and Obama misjudged what the Arab Spring really meant. The willingness, to interfere in sovereign nations for secret purposes, means as a leader she would use our military for 'higher' purposes. As a globalist, that's not a surprise and explains why universally neocons support her. She has their goals and another Iraq type war under Hillary Clinton should come as no surprise. The closeness of Bushes and Clintons goes much deeper than Bush annoyance that Trump beat a Bush. They share a similar set of goals and a belief in American intervention to make the world a 'better' place. It also explains a lot of the appeal she has to hedge funders. Wars of the 'right' sort benefit them too, with instability as a way to make stocks volatile, which profits a hedge fund, and with their resistance to increasing taxes on stock transfers (which makes quick sales and buys less profitable).

It is ironic that many think Trump is more likely to get us into a renewed war when in reality, the steely Hillary Clinton is that person. Her rhetoric, along with the Obama administration, that Russia is behind the Democratic email hacks, shows how eager she is to face down Putin. At what price would that come?

Don't believe me about Hillary and future wars? Do a google search for Hillary and war and get the picture. One example: [Hillary's hawks talk war against North Korea]. Neocons, like Bill Kristol, can hardly wait to get her in power.

So if foreign wars aren't on your agenda, you better keep a close eye on the talk from DC once she has power. Of course, with Hillary, a lot is under the radar because after all, she herself has been quoted as saying that her public words don't necessarily reflect her private intentions. The New York Times considered that good. 

With the current mainstream media in the Clintons' corner, she can use them to gin up the need for whatever wars she believes the country needs for the good of the world... If wars aren't what you want, my suggestion is you keep a close eye on what [Yellow Journalism] is pumping out to make Americans think they need to fight another war-- on the tab probably. 

So what about the other side-- Trump and war. I can't count the times I've heard that his loose tongue can't be put near the nuclear button. Hillary herself is one of those who said exactly that. Well, how many fistfights has Trump had? Physical violence against his enemies? Mysterious deaths among those who stood against him? I knew I hadn't heard of any but thought I'd Google it. Interestingly, any search jumped to the Clinton body count of those who have stood against them. Zero for Trump. [Here are some examples].

So this very violent man has had no fistfights, but he has had a lot of lawsuits someone will say... and what about those tweets? What about them? What it means is he uses his mouth and the legal system against his enemies. So a Bill Maher gets sued for saying he'd give Trump five million dollars if he could prove he hadn't had an orangutan as a parent. Trump produces his birth certificate and sues Maher for the millions. Maher was infuriated (still is) that Trump didn't recognize it was a joke. But Trump's reaction was typical of him--[Trump lawsuits]. A buffoon sometimes maybe but a violent man-- not.

Even with the immigration issues, what is his solution? Building a wall, which Congress authorized years ago but didn't do, and legally deporting people. What Trump has said is no foreign wars when we don't have interests involved. He's said NATO is being too much funded by us while European countries benefit from our protection and their economies and infrastructure have profited. 

How important are our overseas troops to keeping peace? Have we become the world's mercenaries, not loved one bit for it, but maybe necessary and worth having our debt grow, our poor suffer and infrastructure crumble? That would be the case neocons would make.

This is not to say Trump might not get us into a war, but his solutions to our current problems go more to changing trade agreements; so that our businesses get a better deal for staying here than going there. I don't see him as wanting war because somebody insulted him but might he get us into wars based on his ignorance or loose talk? Who knows but stranger things have happened.

Trump's problem with wars and his risks as a leader seem to go more to his willing ignorance as to how things work. He wants to change them, but can that really happen given how many profit from the current system? His careless words would have more risks attached once they are on a global scale. Would he change how he does things as President? Who knows...

So he might get us into a war out of careless lack of knowledge, but she'd plot it out, and the end result might be as disastrous as Libya has proven for the Libyan people and the potential Libya has to be another stronghold for ISIS. 

When I look at these two, I see it a draw as to who is more at risk of using nuclear power. My first vote for a President was in 1964 and the attack on Goldwater was what it is on Trump. They even used nuclear bomb explosions in their ads to block him from winning the White House. As to who got us into a war that proved disastrous and still is today-- the other guy...



No comments: