Look, I’m no expert on how calendars work, but…
Not Hillary per se but the reaction will be more along the lines of “They attacked us without cause!!, See how evil the Russians are!, we MUST react with force otherwise we would appear weak!!”
No I didn’t vote for Trump, sorry.
I’m confused. Is your theory that if we bomb Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, or Yemen, that we’ll get another 9/11 every couple of months? Because we’ve been doing that for years now, and, while we’ve had some terrorist attacks, none of them came close to as bad as 9/11.
Or do you think that Iran alone is capable of pulling it off where all these other terrorist organizations have fallen short, and that Iran should be moved to the second list?
So we dodged a bullet by rejecting an experienced Secretary of State in favor of a guy who didn’t know what the Nuclear Triad is, who wants to nuke ISIS, and who thinks that nuclear proliferation is a *good *idea?
Seriously?
Under Trump, everything will get faster. What has winter ever done for America?! Slowed it down, is all! Trump’ll tell winter to pack its bags and get the hell out! Great again!
Just google “Obama weak Russia”.
Personally, I’m pleased to agree with adaher on this: We don’t really know and can’t accurately predict how things will play out, but whatever happens, Clinton45 was likely to take a carefully considered approach and we have no evidence that Trump will do the same.
I can speculative that a reprisal-based system enjoying some short-term success, i.e. somebody stages an attack on the U.S. and Trump orders indiscriminate retaliatory bombing on suspected terrorist bombings. This will create more potential terrorists, but that’s the next president’s problem. I won’t have any serious data points until Trump assumes office, in large part because he has literally no governmental or military service at all in his record.
Right, so it’s easy to know when Hillary is lying. Her lips move. Actually she was in deadly earnest about no-fly zones, underlining her intention to use them in the Third Presidental Debate. Plus she’s advocated for them for a long time.
Syria wasn’t stable. It was undergoing a drought and a massive internal refugee movement from the country to the cities. The buried lede is this might be the first global warming based war and migration crisis.
Trying to call this “the first global warming based war” sounds like someone just pushing an agenda. We’ve had droughts before this, and those droughts sometimes were accompanied by violence and war (Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 comes to mind). In your mind was Syria the first drought caused by global warming? Or the first time a drought led to a migration crisis and war?
Civil wars tend to start for lots of reasons, some predominant ones and some lesser ones that give rise to the flames. Without the Arab Spring, there almost certainly wouldn’t have been the massive (peaceful) protests that gave rise to Assad’s brutal crackdown and then armed retaliation.
A dictator from a minority group who elevated that minority group into a privileged status and ruled by force and fear is the real tinderbox for an armed insurrection/civil war. That’s why post-Saddam Iraq was headed for a civil war (like what we’re seeing with Da’esh) no matter how long the U.S. stayed since they still can’t work out a political solution in their own government between the sects.
Let’s see, the measured, serious and prepared former Secretary of State vs. an unstable, unpredictable, foriegn policy neophyte whose brilliant decision-making in the past led to five bankruptcies. Yeah, I call bullshit on any “sighs of relief” happening pretty much anywhere in the world.
Worst case scenario with Clinton was that she’d be a bland, right-of-center neo-liberal. Kind of a GWB-lite. With Trump that’s the BEST case scenario. Not seeing the bullet dodge there.
Anyone who thinks the rest of the world was afraid of what Clinton would do and is a-okay with Trump needs to leave their bubble for the first time in their life.
No, I’d prefer it was done by trained military personnel.
[d & r]
I bet she could do it, though, with steely eyes and steady aim.
I did hear she’s a pro at dodging sniper fire. :dubious:
The no fly zone is an expression of commitment to the YPG, Turkey, and the Turkish backed rebels in their fight against Assad while continuing the anti-ISIS effort. It’s obvious to those who are following the war. It’s a message to Russia that we are not going to let them do whatever they want all around the periphery of NATO. It’s a good idea to be a bit more pushy with Russia because they are going to keep pushing at us. Clinton was the correct person for the job. Unfortunately she didn’t do her job of getting elected well enough.
Now we have uncertainty in the face of aggressiveness from countries like Russia and even from terrorist movements like ISIS. I hope Trump’s goal is to use this situation to extract a better effort from NATO and then he will fully commit to checking Russia, but I am concerned because there seems to be no plan, no knowledge of the region at all.
Jeez. And they call Republicans war mongerers. The very fact that there are so many people in this thread who are okay with potentially starting WW3 just makes me even happier Trump won.
ETA: Song up a NFZ in Syria is more than just a matter of saying “you can’t fly your planes here!”. That would require establishing air supremacy and bombing the hell out of Syrian anti-aircraft systems, which are actually Russian. You think Putin would stand for that? And what happens when Russia violates the NFZ? Do we shoot them down? Think people.
When I saw the title of this thread, I had to double-check, and make sure I hadn’t entered the Pit.
I’m a broken record on this, but what Clinton’s foreign policy would have been is predictable. And predictable is good.
A complete break with established understanding, like dumping obligations to NATO, is what is truly dangerous.
Is it fair to call it doublethink when I have my doubts they even singlethinked?