Trump goes after UN as well as NATO

[LibertyEagle]

I am anti-war, and have opposed, and protested, every war since I discovered, as a kid, that the US government lied to the American people to get the public to support "Operation Desert Storm" in the 1990s. I would never vote for Trump, who has stated he is "the most militaristic person", who supported the Iraq War, who supported invading Syria, who wanted to bomb the oil fields in Iraq to go after ISIS, who supported stopping Iran's nuclear program "by any means necessary", who called for a "pre-emptive strike on North Korea", etc, etc.

I'll take former pacifist Sanders any day over warmonger Trump. Though I'm planning to vote Third Party.

Actually, he said that he thought the best way to corral North Korea is to convince China to do it. That it is China who supplies North Korea, so they have an enormous pull. I didn't hear Trump talk about preemptively striking North Korea, but if North Korea keeps claiming they will have the capability soon to bomb the U.S. and plan to do it, a strike would be warranted. That is what imminent threat means.

 

[RJ Liberty]

Actually, he said that he thought the best way to corral North Korea is to convince China to do it. That it is China who supplies North Korea, so they have an enormous pull. I didn't hear Trump talk about preemptively striking North Korea,

Trump has talked about pre-emptive strikes on North Korea for at least 16 years:

"[In a Trump presidency], North Korea would suddenly discover that its worthless promises of civilized behavior would cut no ice. I would let Pyongyang know in no uncertain terms that it can either get out of the nuclear arms race or expect a rebuke similar to the one Ronald Reagan delivered to Ghadhafi in 1986. I don’t think anybody is going to accuse me of tiptoeing through the issues or tap-dancing around them either. Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?" -- The America We Deserve by Donald Trump, page 274.

 

[Feelgood]

Yeah, but Drumpf will say the complete opposite next week interview. He tends to do that.

Fixed.

 

[RJ Liberty]

Fixed.

Thanks! Good point.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Trump has talked about pre-emptive strikes on North Korea for at least 16 years:

"[In a Trump presidency], North Korea would suddenly discover that its worthless promises of civilized behavior would cut no ice. I would let Pyongyang know in no uncertain terms that it can either get out of the nuclear arms race or expect a rebuke similar to the one Ronald Reagan delivered to Ghadhafi in 1986. I don’t think anybody is going to accuse me of tiptoeing through the issues or tap-dancing around them either. Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?" -- The America We Deserve by Donald Trump, page 274.

Perhaps you can quote from something from this decade; instead of a 16 year old book.

 

[RJ Liberty]

^^ Why? Even if I gave you a more recent quote, it wouldn't change your support of a clear warmonger.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

^^ Why? Even if I gave you a more recent quote, it wouldn't change your support of a clear warmonger.

If Trump wants to pull out of nato and the un, he's a lot less of a war monger then anyone else we've had.

The majority of wars since wwii have been un "peacekeeping" missions. If we pull most of our troops home, less chance to get into war.

 

[RJ Liberty]

If Trump wants to pull out of nato and the un, he's a lot less of a war monger then anyone else we've had.

The majority of wars since wwii have been un "peacekeeping" missions. If we pull most of our troops home, less chance to get into war.

No. Because Trump might want to pull us out of NATO and the UN (though his official position will change in a few weeks, as everything else he says already has), but he's still advocating for wars in multiple countries. He said it himself, in October 2015: " I'm the most militaristic person on your show." He wants "boots on the ground" to fight ISIS. He wants to bomb the oil fields in Iraq. He wants to stop Iran's nuclear program "by any means necessary".

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

No. Because Trump might want to pull us out of NATO and the UN (though his official position will change in a few weeks, as everything else he says already has), but he's still advocating for wars in multiple countries. He said it himself, in October 2015: " I'm the most militaristic person on your show." He wants "boots on the ground" to fight ISIS. He wants to bomb the oil fields in Iraq. He wants to stop Iran's nuclear program "by any means necessary".

Taking him at face value, he's an anti-globalist war hawk, who prefers deal making and business over war, unless it's necessary.

So a war hawk if necessary - according to him, but not a neocon or globalist.

 

[CPUd]

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

We have Michael Fields too. Add her

 

[CPUd]

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Taking him at face value, he's an anti-globalist war hawk, who prefers deal making and business over war, unless it's necessary.

So a war hawk if necessary - according to him, but not a neocon or globalist.

So being a war hawk is okay as long as your not a globalist war hawk?

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Wait, why are his supporters so enthusiastic about his position on torture? I was told that Trump supporters are the same type of people who supported Ron Paul!

 

[hells_unicorn]

So being a war hawk is okay as long as your not a globalist war hawk?

Everybody running is a war hawk, including Bernie Sanders (though he coats it in double-speak about humanitarianism), so comparatively speaking, one that is not a globalist will have less of a propensity to start wars or to respond rashly to one going on outside of our borders.

If you want to take a stand for peace, my advice would be to stay home on election day or to simply opt out of voting in the presidential election (that's what I'm doing). Your boy Cruz is cool with protecting life, though sadly not once it has reached 18 years old, and in many cases younger than that if it's our supposed enemies. Cruz's heretical and apocalyptic view of theology makes him extremely dangerous and unpredictable on the issue of war, just for the record.

Wait, why are his supporters so enthusiastic about his position on torture? I was told that Trump supporters are the same type of people who supported Ron Paul!

Uh, who told you that? Not saying it isn't true because a lot of people who supported Ron Paul claimed to be so-called peace activists yet found it convenient to vote for Obama once Paul was finished. There were a fair number of idiots who supported Paul in both 2008 and 2012 based on one or two issues.

 

[FindLiberty]

Trump will be great - His campaign against Clinton will freely use big words, great words...

Please keep our heads attached to our bodies and off of those sticks Mr. Trump.

I love the whole package with TRUMP and I can't think
of anyone else (who has a chance of winning) better
to confront the Hildabeast.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Which is infinitely better than someone who will say every week that they want to expand NATO and/or have it charge into yet another optional war.

Like it or not, if you are anti-war, Trump is the best thing on the menu right now. Even Sanders is for "humanitarian intervention", which of course is the premise that has gotten us into every war we've been in post-Vietnam.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to thoughtomator again.

You may be right, but I'm ALL IN for Vermin Supreme, and can't stop nao!

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Uh, who told you that? Not saying it isn't true because a lot of people who supported Ron Paul claimed to be so-called peace activists yet found it convenient to vote for Obama once Paul was finished. There were a fair number of idiots who supported Paul in both 2008 and 2012 based on one or two issues.

There are people who suggest that there is a correlation between support for Paul and support for Trump.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

So being a war hawk is okay as long as your not a globalist war hawk?

How does attempting to assess someone accurately mean I approve or disapprove of it?

With too large a number of people thinking that distorting, or exaggerating, a candidate for propaganda is a good thing,
the need for attempts to accurate assess a candidate is more important.

No one gives distortions of what is actually true to friends - you give propaganda to enemies. If we want to build up the forums,
we have to encourage honest assessment.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

You may be right, but I'm ALL IN for Vermin Supreme, and can't stop nao!

He bribed you with ponies?