Trump v Clinton - which is more Pro War?

[Origanalist]

Trump is probably less likely to lead us into war, but also more likely to lead us into a severe apocalyptic war due to his fragile ego.

Trump is a FDR type, he would be a great pied piper for war.

 

[Chieppa1]

This is an actual thread? Clinton.

 

[CaptUSA]

Trump is a FDR type, he would be a great pied piper for war.

Yep. They both would go to war for the same reasons. They would use the power of the US military when someone somewhere on the globe isn't doing what they want.

If you think eminent domain is using government force on someone who isn't falling in line, it's a short step to see how that plays out in a geopolitical sense. It's just a matter of how easily you can get the scared dumbasses to support you.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

With Hillary, we have her actual track record (encouraging Bill Clinton to bomb Kosovo in the '90's, supporting the Iraq war in the '00's, urging Obama to bomb Libya and expand operations in Syria as Secretary of State, etc). As has been often said, there is no war that she has said no to.

Trump has no track record in office, but expressed opposition to the Iraq war (he claims before it started, but certainly by 2004 and since), wants to reduce our involvement with NATO, wants to negotiate a fair deal between the Israelis and Palestinians (instead of demonizing the latter), supports having a non-belligerent relationship with Putin, stays independent of pro-war mega-donors, etc.

IOW, Trump is a "Jacksonian" interventionist, who believes in projecting strength and fighting short term conflicts that are directly in America's interest, but is not a neocon interventionist, who subscribes to their full agenda of regime change, nation-building, global empire, belligerent diplomacy, Israel-first mania, and no-exit/no-win wars.

Hillary, by many miles, is more pro-war.

 

[timosman]

Hillary, by many miles, is more pro-war.

+rep Does this even need to be argued?

 

[bubbleboy]

One wants to support ISIS the other wants to knock the hell out of ISIS. So yes there will be some fighting.

Trump doesn't make money from the military industrial complex, Hellary does. Really the question says a lot about what you don't know.

 

[rprprs]

With Hillary, we have her actual track record (encouraging Bill Clinton to bomb Kosovo in the '90's, supporting the Iraq war in the '00's, urging Obama to bomb Libya and expand operations in Syria as Secretary of State, etc). As has been often said, there is no war that she has said no to.

Trump has no track record in office, but expressed opposition to the Iraq war (he claims before it started, but certainly by 2004 and since), wants to reduce our involvement with NATO, wants to negotiate a fair deal between the Israelis and Palestinians (instead of demonizing the latter), supports having a non-belligerent relationship with Putin, stays independent of pro-war mega-donors, etc.

IOW, Trump is a "Jacksonian" interventionist, who believes in projecting strength and fighting short term conflicts that are directly in America's interest, but is not a neocon interventionist, who subscribes to their full agenda of regime change, nation-building, global empire, belligerent diplomacy, Israel-first mania, and no-exit/no-win wars.

Hillary, by many miles, is more pro-war.

Points well taken and I agree.

(Still not casting a vote for him though.)

 

[CPUd]

Trump promotes nuclear proliferation, then says he wouldn't rule out nuking Europe. A Trump war would look a lot different than a Hillary war, though war is war.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Trump promotes nuclear proliferation, then says he wouldn't rule out nuking Europe. A Trump war would look a lot different than a Hillary war, though war is war.

That's just so much horseshit, CPU. He's not a lily-livered pacifist, no. He would defend our country, if attacked. Oh, the horror of it all, right? He doesn't believe in announcing to enemies anywhere, what we would or would not do in the face of an attack on our country. Makes total sense.

Here's the complete interview, err. Chris Matthews jerk off, for people to read for themselves.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ear-weapons-in-attack-on-europe-a6961101.html

 

[Ender]

That's just so much horse$#@!, CPU. He's not a lily-livered pacifist, no. He would defend our country, if attacked. Oh, the horror of it all, right? He doesn't believe in announcing to enemies anywhere, what we would or would not do in the face of an attack on our country. Makes total sense.

Here's the complete interview, err. Chris Matthews jerk off, for people to read for themselves.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ear-weapons-in-attack-on-europe-a6961101.html

So, when Trump says he'll attack or nuke other countries, that's defending the US?

And YOU are on a Ron Paul Forum advocating and supporting nuclear attacks on other countries?

WTH

 

[CaptUSA]

With Hillary, we have her actual track record (encouraging Bill Clinton to bomb Kosovo in the '90's, supporting the Iraq war in the '00's, urging Obama to bomb Libya and expand operations in Syria as Secretary of State, etc). As has been often said, there is no war that she has said no to.

Trump has no track record in office, but expressed opposition to the Iraq war (he claims before it started, but certainly by 2004 and since), wants to reduce our involvement with NATO, wants to negotiate a fair deal between the Israelis and Palestinians (instead of demonizing the latter), supports having a non-belligerent relationship with Putin, stays independent of pro-war mega-donors, etc.

IOW, Trump is a "Jacksonian" interventionist, who believes in projecting strength and fighting short term conflicts that are directly in America's interest, but is not a neocon interventionist, who subscribes to their full agenda of regime change, nation-building, global empire, belligerent diplomacy, Israel-first mania, and no-exit/no-win wars.

Hillary, by many miles, is more pro-war.

I think it would be wiser to not gauge your analysis based on what they have said, but rather what they have done. In this sense, Trump appears just as interventionist as Hillary (though, I suspect the targets may be a little different). Remember, Trump is not beyond using the power of government to get hat he wants. If he decides he wants something or some other nation is "ripping us off", I'm sure he would have no trouble making the case to his gullible public that military action is necessary.

Clinton, though, would have her plans laid out years ahead of time and would use the military as her personal plaything to get what she wants.

So which is better?! Silly question. They both suck.

 

[CPUd]

 

[nikcers]

IOW, Trump is a "Jacksonian" interventionist, who believes in projecting strength and fighting short term conflicts that are directly in America's interest, but is not a neocon interventionist, who subscribes to their full agenda of regime change, nation-building, global empire, belligerent diplomacy, Israel-first mania, and no-exit/no-win wars.

Hillary, by many miles, is more pro-war.

You say Jacksonian, I say North Korean, now before you call hyperbole hear me out. There is a North Korean dictator who always wants to project power, who thinks his country doesn't get to use nukes enough, and wants handouts from other countries because of how great they are. Oh and when he came to power Trump showed empathy for NK's great leader because he had to become a leader at his age.

 

[69360]

Doesn't matter. They could both get us all killed, just by different enemies.

 

[AtlantaIconoclast]

Not sure how telling this is, but yesterday, a few brave senators voted against more military funding for Israel. Rand Paul was one of them, and so was Jeff Sessions, someone with whom Trump really respects, and who is one of his biggest national security advisers. Not very neoconish to oppose an increase in funding for the apartheid state.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

That's easy, Hillary "I vote for Iraq war with conviction" Clinton.

She is not only a well groomed puppet of neocons/Wall Street money baggers but also has very close working ties to another war lobbies puppet notorious for supporting wars violence , dronegangsta-ism etc.

[h=1]Hillary's foreign policy left a legacy of bloodshed, mass deaths in Mideast, Afghanistan[/h]