# Trump: Peace Candidate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 11, 2016, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611 "2016-03-11T02:31:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/121 "2016-05-14T14:42:01Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Favorability polls seem to contradict your assertion. > > But let me help you with that: “major _Republican_ party nominee.” Which assertion? Favorability has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m talking about. > [@coremelt](#): > > However the US disengaging from the middle east would almost certainly see Iraq breaking up and the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional domination would flare up in open warfare. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia would buy nukes from Pakistan if they were seriously threatened by Iran. Iran would restart it’s own nuclear weapons program. There would be a decade or so of warfare in the middle east as countries ally with either Saudia Arabia or Iran. Some might say “good” let them go at each other, you might have a point, but this is hardly “peace”. Oh you prefer the “peace” of continual warfare. Gotcha, that’s a tried and true line of the hardcore ideologues that have destroyed the region. You base your claims on nothing but pure speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/122 "2016-05-14T15:29:00Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Wow somebody is on his heels. The anti war liberals won’t ever vote for Trump, but if he keeps hammering like this, it will depress her turnout with independants. A clever proposition: it doesn’t matter that no peace groups will endorse Trump, because he’s so pro-peace that the pro-peace voters are just not going to vote. I have yet to see Trump “hammer” on Hillary on the topic of peace. I’m inclined to think that I’m not the only one who has no idea what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/123 "2016-05-14T16:08:49Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > i don’t care. He came out against it well before she did and she only did it to run for president in 2008. In any case, he has made more courageous anti war statements than any of the other candidates combined. Would a “peace” candidate be insisting he’d “bomb the shit out of ISIS” then take their oil? Would a “peace” candidate proclaim that he’d have the military torture captives, and insist that the military had BETTER torture captives if they know what’s good for them? Donald Trump is not a peace OR a war candidate. He’s a “Say Whatever Stupid Thing Pops Into My Head At Any Given Moment Even If It Completely Contradicts What I Said Ten Minutes Ago” candidate. PS Why do you suppose the Iraq War’s chief architect, Dick Cheney, is strongly endorsing Trump? Think maybe Cheney knows better than anybody that Trump is a BS artist and doesn’t mean a word he says? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/124 "2016-05-14T16:19:24Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > PS Why do you suppose the Iraq War’s chief architect, Dick Cheney, is strongly endorsing Trump? Because he envies his hair. [rimshot] ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/125 "2016-05-14T16:50:33Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Would a “peace” candidate be insisting he’d “bomb the shit out of ISIS” then take their oil? > > Would a “peace” candidate proclaim that he’d have the military torture captives, and insist that the military had BETTER torture captives if they know what’s good for them? > > Donald Trump is not a peace OR a war candidate. He’s a “Say Whatever Stupid Thing Pops Into My Head At Any Given Moment Even If It Completely Contradicts What I Said Ten Minutes Ago” candidate. > PS Why do you suppose the Iraq War’s chief architect, Dick Cheney, is strongly endorsing Trump? Think maybe Cheney knows better than anybody that Trump is a BS artist and doesn’t mean a word he says? And besides the company Trump keeps, one has to notice how others on the right can see that it is silly to paint Trump as a dove, even the libertarians at Reason magazine know the score. > **[Trump Is Not the Peace Candidate](https://reason.com/2016/04/12/trump-is-not-the-peace-candida/)** > > Don't be fooled by the false prophet of anti-interventionism. > [@](#): > > Trump Is Not the Peace Candidate > Don’t be fooled by the false prophet of anti-interventionism. > [@](#): > > So you could see why longtime critics of American empire were talking themselves into enthusiasm about the Trump phenomenon. He was saying things about foreign policy that few Republicans dared previously to utter, and he was making all the right enemies. > > What’s not to like? > > Plenty. The same candidate being cheered on by anti-war commentators is an open advocate of committing more war crimes. He favors deliberately targeting the family members of suspected terrorists (“I would be very, very firm with families,” he vowed at the December 15 debate in Las Vegas). He wants to expand the use of torture, saying of waterboarding that “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us.” Trump’s troops will not only be “defeating ISIS big league” but also seizing its oil. He keeps repeating a wholly made-up story about General John Pershing dipping bullets in pig’s blood and executing villagers in the Philippines a century ago—and he thinks Pershing’s alleged behavior is worth emulating. When confronted at the March 3 debate in Detroit with the possibility that military personnel might refuse to follow orders that violate their oaths to the Constitution, Trump said, “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.” The fact that less than 24 hours later he walked his bluster back slightly provides little in the way of reassurance. > > Trump’s domestic approach to keeping America safe would require erecting an unprecedented police state. In addition to deporting 11 million illegal immigrants and their 4 million or so legal children, he has proposed a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on.” In the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attacks, he suggested “closing that Internet up in some way.” As for National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, a hero to many anti-interventionist libertarians: “I will tell you right from the beginning, I said he was a spy and we should get him back,” Trump said in Detroit. (For reason’s interview with Snowden, go to page 42.) > > Trump’s policies, then, are anything but anti-interventionist. He offers a Jacksonian take on American belligerence, in which the already over-stuffed power of the executive branch will be wielded by a famously mercurial and off-the-cuff one-man brand. > > And there’s an even better reason to resist the lure of Trump’s allegedly libertarian-friendly foreign policy. The best case against Trump is, ironically, Trump’s case against George W. Bush. Which is to say, you can express the right instincts about foreign policy on the campaign trail, but if you walk into the presidency without much fluency in world affairs, aggressive interventionism is only one tragedy away. > > Bush not only promised a more “humble” foreign policy in 2000, he rejected “nation-building” as a project suitable for the U.S. military. Neoconservatives were so distressed at the prospect of him soundly defeating their favorite, John McCain, that by the summer of 2001 many were openly considering bolting the GOP to found a new Bull Moose-style party. > > People perhaps unfairly mocked Bush’s malapropisms on the campaign trail—calling Slovaks “Slovakians,” Greeks “Grecians,” etc.—but it was clear that the plain-speaking Texas governor had not exactly spent the 20th century immersed in foreign policy concerns. When the planes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11, he reached for anyone who’d been obsessing about the Middle East. Those people, it turns out, were the interventionists. Soon his foreign policy followed suit. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/126 "2016-05-14T17:56:09Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Which assertion? Favorability has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m talking about. OK, if you want to be disingenuous, _this_ assertion: > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The democratic base is just as gullible, this message board and Diane Rehm is proof of that. Nice job of disrespecting everyone on the board, btw. Except, of course, those who agree with that elitist attitude. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/127 "2016-05-14T18:47:20Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > A clever proposition: it doesn’t matter that no peace groups will endorse Trump, because he’s so pro-peace that the pro-peace voters are just not going to vote. > > I have yet to see Trump “hammer” on Hillary on the topic of peace. I’m inclined to think that I’m not the only one who has no idea what you’re talking about. The video I posted shows Trump hammering on Clinton. Bernie Sanders hasn’t come close to anything like that. > [@astorian](#): > > Would a “peace” candidate be insisting he’d “bomb the shit out of ISIS” then take their oil? > > Would a “peace” candidate proclaim that he’d have the military torture captives, and insist that the military had BETTER torture captives if they know what’s good for them? > > Donald Trump is not a peace OR a war candidate. He’s a “Say Whatever Stupid Thing Pops Into My Head At Any Given Moment Even If It Completely Contradicts What I Said Ten Minutes Ago” candidate. > PS Why do you suppose the Iraq War’s chief architect, Dick Cheney, is strongly endorsing Trump? Think maybe Cheney knows better than anybody that Trump is a BS artist and doesn’t mean a word he says? The peace candidate would do those things if he was only considered the peace candidate because he was facing Clinton. It says a lot that the Democrats put up a big warmonger like Clinton. They are more concerned with redistribution than anything else, which is probably why Bernie shows no signs he cares about foreign policy. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And besides the company Trump keeps, one has to notice how others on the right can see that it is silly to paint Trump as a dove, even the libertarians at Reason magazine know the score. > > [http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/12/trump-is-not-the-peace-candida](http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/12/trump-is-not-the-peace-candida) Trump is not a dove. Trump is just relatively peaceful compared to Clinton. In addition, he happens to be the candidate who has made the strongest anti war statements. > [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > OK, if you want to be disingenuous, _this_ assertion: > > Nice job of disrespecting everyone on the board, btw. Except, of course, those who agree with that elitist attitude. Still have no idea what you’re going on about. How does “favorability” have anything to do with how gullible the many Democratic flag-wavers on this board are? For example, one poster claimed that Hillary Clinton was more peaceful than Trump and cited her words as evidence. Apparently leaving a pile of corpses in your wake is outweighed by giving a speech while running for the nomination of Democratic Party. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/128 "2016-05-14T19:15:09Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The democratic base is just as gullible, this message board and Diane Rehm is proof of that. What about Diane Rehm? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/129 "2016-05-14T19:24:55Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Trump is not a dove. Trump is just relatively peaceful compared to Clinton. In addition, he happens to be the candidate who has made the strongest anti war statements. As pointed before you can not counteract properly the reality that trade wars eventually turn into real wars. And the record does show that Trump really does forget what he said before the Iraq war. > **[Donald Trump and the Iraq War - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/)** > > Donald Trump has repeated throughout his presidential campaign that he opposed the Iraq war before the March 19, 2003 invasion. But there's no evidence of that. Here's a timeline of statements Trump made in 2002 and 2003 about the war. > [@](#): > > Donald Trump has repeated throughout his presidential campaign that he opposed the Iraq war before the March 19, 2003 invasion, often taking credit for his judgement and vision — claiming he knew it would destabilize the Middle East. > > On Feb. 13, in the most recent debate, Trump said: “I said it loud and clear, ‘You’ll destabilize the Middle East.'” In the Sept. 16, 2015 debate, Trump claimed that he “fought very, very hard against us … going into Iraq,” saying he could provide “25 different stories” to prove his opposition. > > Trump has even said that he was “visited by people from the White House” in attempt to silence him, because, he said, he was getting “a disproportionate amount of publicity” for his opposition to the war. > > There is no evidence that we could find, however, that he spoke against the war before it started, although we did find he expressed early concerns about the cost and direction of the war a few months after it started. > > Others have looked, but no one else — including PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker — has been able to find any evidence to support his claims, either. Now, BuzzFeed reports that Trump indicated his support for war in a radio interview with shock jock Howard Stern on Sept. 11, 2002 — a little more than six months before the war started. > > Stern asked Trump directly if he supported going to war with Iraq, and Trump hesitantly responded, “Yeah, I guess so.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/130 "2016-05-14T20:00:32Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > For example, one poster claimed that Hillary Clinton was more peaceful than Trump and cited her words as evidence. Apparently leaving a pile of corpses in your wake . . . WTF?! What is this, some bullshit about Benghazi?! ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/131 "2016-05-14T20:16:44Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Still have no idea what you’re going on about. How does “favorability” have anything to do with how gullible the many Democratic flag-wavers on this board are? You’re moving the target, much like a certain Republican presumptive nominee. Your words: > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The democratic base is just as gullible [as the Republican base]… This was your initial assertion, to which I replied that favorability ratings contradict that. Every major demographic of the Democratic party views Trump negatively; women, Hispanics, African-American, even white voters. As a matter of fact, the only Democrats who I’ve seen even threaten to vote for Trump are Sanders supporters disgruntled with the fact that Bernie won’t win the nomination. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > , this message board and Diane Rehm is proof of that. You then extend that to this board, claiming that Democrats here are gullible as ‘proof’ of your original contention. (And adding to it that one radio personality, Diane Rehm, is gullible as well, a completely superfluous point.) Not only that, but you make no distinctions whatsoever, so I am left with the perception that you meant everyone on this board. Mind you, not an ounce of evidence provided, just your (clearly) biased opinion. You’d be laughed out of any formal debate. Or am I supposed to be gullible enough to just buy your argument without proof? ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/132 "2016-05-15T03:12:52Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Oh you prefer the “peace” of continual warfare. Gotcha, that’s a tried and true line of the hardcore ideologues that have destroyed the region. You base your claims on nothing but pure speculation. I am not in favour of either Clinton or Trump, I’m just speculating what their foreign policy would be. I can’t see that either of them is a “peace” candidate. As far as I can see the choice is “more of the same old continuous warfare” (Clinton) or “Letting two regional powers go at each other and taking the risk of it escalating into something that spreads far beyond the middle east” (Trump). There is no winners here, except arms manufacturers. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/134 "2016-05-16T11:36:11Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Trump was right about Iraq when it mattered. Cite? I have much admiration for those who were right\*\*\* in 2002\*\*\* about the folly of invasion — they weren’t nearly as rare as often thought, though Hillary wasn’t one of them. However, Trump didn’t oppose the invasion except in hindsight _ **in 2004** _, a time when only the stupidest and stubbornest still thought it was a good decision. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/135 "2016-05-16T13:02:20Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Cite? I have much admiration for those who were right\*\*\* in 2002\*\*\* about the folly of invasion — they weren’t nearly as rare as often thought, though Hillary wasn’t one of them. > > However, Trump didn’t oppose the invasion except in hindsight _ **in 2004** _, a time when only the stupidest and stubbornest still thought it was a good decision. That seems to be the case as others have pointed out. > [@coremelt](#): > > I am not in favour of either Clinton or Trump, I’m just speculating what their foreign policy would be. I can’t see that either of them is a “peace” candidate. As far as I can see the choice is “more of the same old continuous warfare” (Clinton) or “Letting two regional powers go at each other and taking the risk of it escalating into something that spreads far beyond the middle east” (Trump). There is no winners here, except arms manufacturers. Arms manufacturers win much bigger when the American government opens it purse. > [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > You’re moving the target, much like a certain Republican presumptive nominee. Your words: > > This was your initial assertion, to which I replied that favorability ratings contradict that. Every major demographic of the Democratic party views Trump negatively; women, Hispanics, African-American, even white voters. As a matter of fact, the only Democrats who I’ve seen even threaten to vote for Trump are Sanders supporters disgruntled with the fact that Bernie won’t win the nomination. > > You then extend that to this board, claiming that Democrats here are gullible as ‘proof’ of your original contention. (And adding to it that one radio personality, Diane Rehm, is gullible as well, a completely superfluous point.) Not only that, but you make no distinctions whatsoever, so I am left with the perception that you meant everyone on this board. > > Mind you, not an ounce of evidence provided, just your (clearly) biased opinion. You’d be laughed out of any formal debate. Or am I supposed to be gullible enough to just buy your argument without proof? You miss my point. Democrats are gullible because they believe someone like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > WTF?! What is this, some bullshit about Benghazi?! Libya, Iraq, Etc. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As pointed before you can not counteract properly the reality that trade wars eventually turn into real wars. > > And the record does show that Trump really does forget what he said before the Iraq war. > > [Donald Trump and the Iraq War - FactCheck.org](http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/) Yes. This is an important aspect when determining this year’s peace candidate, though nobody points this out for Sanders. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/136 "2016-05-16T13:36:59Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The video I posted shows Trump hammering on Clinton. I watched that video. It’s clearly one of those things you find on blogs titled, “EPIC TAKEDOWN OF HILLARY!!!” in the same manner than Jon Stewart perpetrated MASSIVE TAKeDOWNS of Wall Street, George Bush, the pharmaceutical industry, the New England Patriots, the TSA, and the Kansas State Senator from the Ninth District who wrote that really dumb bill about that thing that one time. Man, Stewart took down those guys so hard that… it didn’t change anything. Some choice quotes from that video: “I voted against [Iraq] except I was a civilian so nobody cared. From the beginning, I said it was going to destabilize the Middle East…” Thankfully, you now acknowledge that Trump said no such thing in public. In fact, his statements were probably more pro-war than anything. More: “Her decisions in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.” Uh, wait, Clinton did vote for the war, but that doesn’t mean the war was her “decision.” The civil wars and revolutions in Syria, Egypt, and Libya, which happened when she was Secretary of State, have not cost anyone trillions of dollars. So, this is another example of how Trump can’t be counted on to say anything near the truth. “We spent four trillion dollars, and they bomb a city, and I look, and these cities, there’s practically nothing there, and these four, five story buildings are just laying there, and they say nobody was killed… I bet you thousands and thousands were killed every time you see [unintelligible] …” What the fuck? Who is saying that? The same news reports Trump heard about Arabs cheering in New Jersey when the WTC came down? Literally nothing about that statement is true in any way. “Iraq is the Harvard for terrorists.” Uh, okay, Donald. And your “military” high school is the Saudi Arabia of egomaniac know-nothings. I sincerely hope that Trump brings all this lunacy and more to the debates. It is going to be embarrassing. I’d bet you $15 that Trump can’t name the current prime minister of Canada. I’d prefer to bet you $15 that Trump can’t string three sentences on foreign policy together without misrepresenting a verifiable fact, but I’m pretty sure that nobody would ever take me up on that bet. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/137 "2016-05-16T14:16:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I watched that video. It’s clearly one of those things you find on blogs titled, “EPIC TAKEDOWN OF HILLARY!!!” in the same manner than Jon Stewart perpetrated MASSIVE TAKeDOWNS of Wall Street, George Bush, the pharmaceutical industry, the New England Patriots, the TSA, and the Kansas State Senator from the Ninth District who wrote that really dumb bill about that thing that one time. Man, Stewart took down those guys so hard that… it didn’t change anything. > > Some choice quotes from that video: “I voted against [Iraq] except I was a civilian so nobody cared. From the beginning, I said it was going to destabilize the Middle East…” > > Thankfully, you now acknowledge that Trump said no such thing in public. In fact, his statements were probably more pro-war than anything. > > More: “Her decisions in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.” > > Uh, wait, Clinton did vote for the war, but that doesn’t mean the war was her “decision.” The civil wars and revolutions in Syria, Egypt, and Libya, which happened when she was Secretary of State, have not cost anyone trillions of dollars. So, this is another example of how Trump can’t be counted on to say anything near the truth. > > “We spent four trillion dollars, and they bomb a city, and I look, and these cities, there’s practically nothing there, and these four, five story buildings are just laying there, and they say nobody was killed… I bet you thousands and thousands were killed every time you see [unintelligible] …” > > What the fuck? Who is saying that? The same news reports Trump heard about Arabs cheering in New Jersey when the WTC came down? Literally nothing about that statement is true in any way. > > “Iraq is the Harvard for terrorists.” > > Uh, okay, Donald. And your “military” high school is the Saudi Arabia of egomaniac know-nothings. > > I sincerely hope that Trump brings all this lunacy and more to the debates. It is going to be embarrassing. I’d bet you $15 that Trump can’t name the current prime minister of Canada. I’d prefer to bet you $15 that Trump can’t string three sentences on foreign policy together without misrepresenting a verifiable fact, but I’m pretty sure that nobody would ever take me up on that bet. I bet you $15 that the unwashed masses do not care. What matters to me is a) Trump is taking a strong antiwar stance (here). b) it is selling. That tells me a lot about how the unwashed masses are feeling. He is actually showing (feigning? I don’t care) compassion for the victims of Clinton and the rest of the gang. That is somewhere Bernie Sanders hasn’t gone, and doesn’t care to go. Most antiwar voices are coming from a strongly, let’s say utilitarian, argument against war. Not a moral argument. Trump usually is utilitarian too, but here he showed courage in mentioning the victims that the US media ignores entirely. I hate using this terminology because the left is no longer antiwar if it ever was, but Trump is “to the left” of Clinton in certain areas besides Social Security. One is in regards to her NATO expansionist/ Russia policy. Another is in regards to her “taking out regional strongmen and creating chaos and death” policy. (Unfortunately, for Clinton these two would not be mutually exclusive.) This could cause some problems for her in the debate when she is forced to defend intervention after intervention, and she starts scaring the shit out of everyone except Marco Rubio and John Kasich. A few notes: Clinton was a part of the US govt’s decision to invade Iraq. Period. You are nitpicking Trump’s word choice. Clinton was also the key figure in the decision to intervene in Libya and create chaos there. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/138 "2016-05-16T15:46:53Z")
Some people (e.g. those always calling for war … and those calling always for peace) take an extremist 1-dimensional view on foreign policy. (Similarly, some have 1-dimensional extremist economic or financial models.) Others, while anxious to protect the lives of American soldiers and eager for diplomatic solutions, agree that the U.S. _does_ sometimes have an important military role to play on the world stage: protecting its (and the world’s) political and economic interests, combating the rise of Islamist extremism, serving as a counter to possible aggressions by Russia and other players, and so on. To debate whether a specific intervention was smart or dumb would be a digression and would require much study — though certainly it would be easy to agree that the Iraq invasion was orders stupider than anything done in Libya. On balance, it should be easy to conclude that the Clinton-42 and Obama Administrations have been very good overall on foreign policy. Clinton-44, whatever it is, should be less warlike than, say, Cruz who wanted to carpet-bomb Daesh. A possible Trump Administration is harder to predict (what will happen if you turn over the nuclear football etc. to a megalomaniac of only average knowledge and intelligence?) but he has given some clues: He’s proposed militant neocon advisors for himself, come out in support of killing families, etc. (though like so much Trumpo-Jumbo, it all may be lies trying to appeal to his base). TL;DR. Change the question-mark in OP title to an exclamation mark and it would make a good Onion headline. ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/139 "2016-05-16T16:10:52Z")
The extent which WillFarnaby appears to be living in an entirely alternate reality is astonishing to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/140 "2016-05-16T17:01:06Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > The extent which WillFarnaby appears to be living in an entirely alternate reality is astonishing to me. Indeed. His posting history does not allow me to take him seriously. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/141 "2016-05-16T17:14:18Z")
Iraq was worse than Libya, so far, but Clinton loved both of them, and still loves the Libya intervention. She also didn’t put up a fight when thousands of Iraqi children died as a result of Bill Clinton’s sanctions on Iraq. The American military protects it’s own interests like any other organization. To suggest they are protecting “America’s” economic interests at large is childish. Like the rest of the hardcore ideologues in today’s political climate, you only mention the worth of lives of American soldiers. I’m actually not too concerned with the lives of American soldiers. They made a choice to be immoral, ignorant, and/or ambitious and their chickens are coming home to roost. I’m concerned about the military’s instigation of Islamic extremism and the consequences of which we have only recently started to see. I’m also concerned about the innocent people murdered by the government many worship as a “counter” to “aggression”. Trump mentioned them. You did not and have not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611.md?page=8)