|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 30 2016 02:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:06 xM(Z wrote:
i believed(before it was meta) and still believe that Clinton will start ww3:
personal reasons:
-she is a woman, she wants to prove that women (can and will) make America great again and what better way to illustrate that than beating men at their own game: war.
-she is a woman, a cheated woman nonetheless, while she was the first lady; that leaves scars => a need to prove herself, to prove she is better than <...>.
-she is the product of her chosen environment, she can no longer relate to her subjects/them regular folk so she hates them with passion.
other reasons:
-during Obama's term in meetings on security/Middle East issues, Clinton was the warmonger, time and time again pushing for military intervention in Middle East.
-she is the establishment and it, wants the Middle East since '49.
if Russia loses Middle East it is done for. Out of curiousity what will need to happen to make you admit that you were wrong? If 2024 rolls around and we still haven't had WW3 would you concede? Also how does the Iran deal (a stable peace that removes the core conflict between Iran and the US) feature in this? i'll concede by the end of 2017 if she wins and nothing happens.
the Iran deal was Obama diplomacy 101 but its actual meaning and scope alludes me. on a personal level i believe EU and some (sunni)Middle Eastern countries wanted to push US out of the region and as such, US allied itself with shias and kurds.
|
On October 30 2016 02:06 xM(Z wrote:
i believed(before it was meta) and still believe that Clinton will start ww3:
personal reasons:
-she is a woman, she wants to prove that women (can and will) make America great again and what better way to illustrate that than beating men at their own game: war.
-she is a woman, a cheated woman nonetheless, while she was the first lady; that leaves scars => a need to prove herself, to prove she is better than <...>.
-she is the product of her chosen environment, she can no longer relate to her subjects/them regular folk so she hates them with passion.
other reasons:
-during Obama's term in meetings on security/Middle East issues, Clinton was the warmonger, time and time again pushing for military intervention in Middle East.
-she is the establishment and it, wants the Middle East since '49.
if Russia loses Middle East it is done for.
Reminds me of when I was discussing the election with a friend from Ukraine (the Russians and Ukrainians I know all like Trump). The only thing he could come up with against Hillary was 'but she is a woman'. What is it with you eastern euros and your woman issues?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk.
|
On October 30 2016 02:06 xM(Z wrote:
i believed(before it was meta) and still believe that Clinton will start ww3:
personal reasons:
-she is a woman, she wants to prove that women (can and will) make America great again and what better way to illustrate that than beating men at their own game: war.
-she is a woman, a cheated woman nonetheless, while she was the first lady; that leaves scars => a need to prove herself, to prove she is better than <...>.
Your blatant sexism certainly resonates with a decent percentage of American Trump supporters.
|
On October 30 2016 02:32 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk.
Last time I checked, both World Wars were caused by men.
The idea that being a strong woman is something to criticize blows my mind.
|
Irrespective of her gender, Clinton has been hawkish enough in the past for me to believe that she will continue to be so.
However, I don't think she's stupid enough to cause World War 3. She'll probably fuck up our relationships abroad in a few isolated instances but not to the extent that WW3 would happen.
|
On October 30 2016 02:29 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:06 xM(Z wrote:
i believed(before it was meta) and still believe that Clinton will start ww3:
personal reasons:
-she is a woman, she wants to prove that women (can and will) make America great again and what better way to illustrate that than beating men at their own game: war.
-she is a woman, a cheated woman nonetheless, while she was the first lady; that leaves scars => a need to prove herself, to prove she is better than <...>.
-she is the product of her chosen environment, she can no longer relate to her subjects/them regular folk so she hates them with passion.
other reasons:
-during Obama's term in meetings on security/Middle East issues, Clinton was the warmonger, time and time again pushing for military intervention in Middle East.
-she is the establishment and it, wants the Middle East since '49.
if Russia loses Middle East it is done for. Reminds me of when I was discussing the election with a friend from Ukraine (the Russians and Ukrainians I know all like Trump). The only thing he could come up with against Hillary was 'but she is a woman'. What is it with you eastern euros and your woman issues?
That's just 2 people, one of which we already knew is a bit cuckoo. I wouldn't read that much into it.
There was an international poll about this election in 40-something countries and in Portugal Hillary had the largest lead (80 points), yet the only person from Portugal in this thread is fawning all over Trump.
|
thats some top tier psychoanalysis rofl
|
United States41989 Posts
On October 30 2016 02:21 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:12 KwarK wrote:On October 30 2016 02:06 xM(Z wrote:
i believed(before it was meta) and still believe that Clinton will start ww3:
personal reasons:
-she is a woman, she wants to prove that women (can and will) make America great again and what better way to illustrate that than beating men at their own game: war.
-she is a woman, a cheated woman nonetheless, while she was the first lady; that leaves scars => a need to prove herself, to prove she is better than <...>.
-she is the product of her chosen environment, she can no longer relate to her subjects/them regular folk so she hates them with passion.
other reasons:
-during Obama's term in meetings on security/Middle East issues, Clinton was the warmonger, time and time again pushing for military intervention in Middle East.
-she is the establishment and it, wants the Middle East since '49.
if Russia loses Middle East it is done for. Out of curiousity what will need to happen to make you admit that you were wrong? If 2024 rolls around and we still haven't had WW3 would you concede? Also how does the Iran deal (a stable peace that removes the core conflict between Iran and the US) feature in this? i'll concede by the end of 2017 if she wins and nothing happens. the Iran deal was Obama diplomacy 101 but its actual meaning and scope alludes me. on a personal level i believe EU and some (sunni)Middle Eastern countries wanted to push US out of the region and as such, US allied itself with shias and kurds.
If you want a basic rundown of the history of Iran, why Iran went for nukes, why the sanctions happened and why they were subsequently lifted I wrote one here.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5368#107342
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
syria is diplomacy not a military conflict. this fearmongering is just muddying the water and providing cover for the current military push by rus/assad.
any syria plan will be very intensely debated and there is certainly no shortage of voices for measured solutions. the talk about no flyzone etc is just talk right now, a contrast to obama who isnt even getting an objective out there.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 30 2016 02:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:32 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk. Last time I checked, both World Wars were caused by men. The idea that being a strong woman is something to criticize blows my mind.
Does criticizing a female leader for openly advocating for nuclear war, as some of these EE "strong women" have done in the past, blow your mind as well?
On October 30 2016 02:36 TheYango wrote:
Irrespective of her gender, Clinton has been hawkish enough in the past for me to believe that she will continue to be so.
However, I don't think she's stupid enough to cause World War 3. She'll probably fuck up our relationships abroad in a few isolated instances but not to the extent that WW3 would happen.
Agreed. Her presidency will have consequences more along the lines of "we should really rethink to what extent we align our FP with the US" among other nations.
|
On October 30 2016 02:37 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:29 Kickstart wrote:On October 30 2016 02:06 xM(Z wrote:
i believed(before it was meta) and still believe that Clinton will start ww3:
personal reasons:
-she is a woman, she wants to prove that women (can and will) make America great again and what better way to illustrate that than beating men at their own game: war.
-she is a woman, a cheated woman nonetheless, while she was the first lady; that leaves scars => a need to prove herself, to prove she is better than <...>.
-she is the product of her chosen environment, she can no longer relate to her subjects/them regular folk so she hates them with passion.
other reasons:
-during Obama's term in meetings on security/Middle East issues, Clinton was the warmonger, time and time again pushing for military intervention in Middle East.
-she is the establishment and it, wants the Middle East since '49.
if Russia loses Middle East it is done for. Reminds me of when I was discussing the election with a friend from Ukraine (the Russians and Ukrainians I know all like Trump). The only thing he could come up with against Hillary was 'but she is a woman'. What is it with you eastern euros and your woman issues? That's just 2 people, one of which we already knew is a bit cuckoo. I wouldn't read that much into it. There was an international poll about this election in 40-something countries and in Portugal Hillary had the largest lead (80 points), yet the only person from Portugal in this thread is fawning all over Trump.
Lol if you knew anything about Portugal you wouldn't be surprised with those results.
People here think if Trump wins he will use nuclear weapons and destroy the world, thats the actual thinking of many portuguese people.
My biggest problem against Hillary is her foreign policy and how she wants to arm Alqaeda in Syria, but if you guys are ok with that that's your opinion i will be against it no matter what. I don't have to support her just because some random poll in my country where the majority of people don't care about foreign policy and what happens behind the curtains think.
|
mostly you're just lying portugal; hillary does not want to arm alqaeda; and we've already debunked that and been over it with you.
so it makes people care less about what oyu say cuz you post some stuff tha'ts nonsensical on its face; which makes people glaze over your other stuff.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The effect of the plans for arming rebels that Hillary & co have put forward have generally led very easily to Al Qaeda or ISIS receiving those weapons. To say they are arming Al Qaeda is only slightly hyperbolic.
|
On October 30 2016 02:59 zlefin wrote:
mostly you're just lying portugal; hillary does not want to arm alqaeda; and we've already debunked that and been over it with you.
so it makes people care less about what oyu say cuz you post some stuff tha'ts nonsensical on its face; which makes people glaze over your other stuff.
Na you didn't debunk anything only inside your little mind, if i was lying the mods would have banned long time ago i provided sources and laid down my opinion. Nonsensical ? When 80% of the rebels in Aleppo are islamic extremists, she says she wants to arm the rebels in Aleppo, whats the logical conclusion? Alqaeda dominates the rebels in that region and without them the rebels are not capable of fending of the regime, you are the liar here or just badly informed.
On October 30 2016 03:01 LegalLord wrote:
The effect of the plans for arming rebels that Hillary & co have put forward have generally led very easily to Al Qaeda or ISIS receiving those weapons. To say they are arming Al Qaeda is only slightly hyperbolic.
the thing is i could easily overlook some weapons going to the wrong hands, with so many factions engaging in this civil war that is bound to happen eventually. The thing is that the core of rebels in Aleppo are extremists, i listed all the involved rebel factions on the latest attacks to break the siege. 80% of them are extremists and want to impose sharia law and an islamic caliphate you can check their websites where they state that much. By helping the rebels in Aleppo you will be helping those extremist factions, thus helping Alqaeda that is the strongest military and ideologically among the rebel factions.
It's not hyperbole to say that she will be arming islamic extremists including Alqaeda. Any weapon you give to the rebels will be used in coordination with them because they are spearheading the major operations there. Funny enough the rebels have shown much more unity after the Al-Nusra re-branding and their ascension in Syria.
|
On October 30 2016 02:52 oneofthem wrote:
syria is diplomacy not a military conflict. this fearmongering is just muddying the water and providing cover for the current military push by rus/assad.
any syria plan will be very intensely debated and there is certainly no shortage of voices for measured solutions. the talk about no flyzone etc is just talk right now, a contrast to obama who isnt even getting an objective out there.
I'm confused, the ISIS capital is in Syria... How is that not a military problem for all parties involved? Assad is an internal Syrian diplomatic issue, I'll give you that. One in which the EU, US and Russia will hopefully apply appropriate diplomatic pressure to allow an opposition party to form within the government of Syria and for the -- probably by now very few -- remaining decent people living in the north to be represented appropriately.
I also don't really understand the no fly zone thing. America is going to want to drop bombs on ISIS in Syria like they are in Mosul. That doesn't sound very no fly zone to me. Or are they using artillery/ground-based missiles?
|
On October 30 2016 03:06 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:52 oneofthem wrote:
syria is diplomacy not a military conflict. this fearmongering is just muddying the water and providing cover for the current military push by rus/assad.
any syria plan will be very intensely debated and there is certainly no shortage of voices for measured solutions. the talk about no flyzone etc is just talk right now, a contrast to obama who isnt even getting an objective out there. I'm confused, the ISIS capital is in Syria... How is that not a military problem for all parties involved? Assad is an internal Syrian diplomatic issue, I'll give you that. One in which the EU, US and Russia will hopefully apply appropriate diplomatic pressure to allow an opposition party to form within the government of Syria and for the -- probably by now very few -- remaining decent people living in the north to be represented appropriately. I also don't really understand the no fly zone thing. America is going to want to drop bombs on ISIS in Syria like they are in Mosul. That doesn't sound very no fly zone to me. Or are they using artillery/ground-based missiles?
They want to create a no-fly-zone to stop the regime and the russians from Attacking the rebels in Aleppo.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 30 2016 03:06 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:52 oneofthem wrote:
syria is diplomacy not a military conflict. this fearmongering is just muddying the water and providing cover for the current military push by rus/assad.
any syria plan will be very intensely debated and there is certainly no shortage of voices for measured solutions. the talk about no flyzone etc is just talk right now, a contrast to obama who isnt even getting an objective out there. I'm confused, the ISIS capital is in Syria... How is that not a military problem for all parties involved? Assad is an internal Syrian diplomatic issue, I'll give you that. One in which the EU, US and Russia will hopefully apply appropriate diplomatic pressure to allow an opposition party to form within the government of Syria and for the -- probably by now very few -- remaining decent people living in the north to be represented appropriately. I also don't really understand the no fly zone thing. America is going to want to drop bombs on ISIS in Syria like they are in Mosul. That doesn't sound very no fly zone to me. Or are they using artillery/ground-based missiles?
not a military problem means a military solution(winning a war vs someone) isnt the objective. it is rather a diplomatic problem, military power can be a part of either reaching or maintaining a peace.
the objective of this misinformation fearmongering over u.s. intentions in syria is just to cover for the ongoing military push by the assad side.
|
On October 30 2016 02:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:32 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk. Last time I checked, both World Wars were caused by men. The idea that being a strong woman is something to criticize blows my mind. Does criticizing a female leader for openly advocating for nuclear war, as some of these EE "strong women" have done in the past, blow your mind as well?
If anyone, regardless of their sex, is "openly advocating for nuclear war", then that's something that needs to be addressed. But for xM(Z to say that her sex is a driving force for starting WW3, and for you to follow up in agreement that that's a fair statement because strong female leaders can be aggressive... that does nothing but to perpetuate sexism. It doesn't blow my mind that people are sexist, but it does blow my mind that people can be so cavalier about it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
btw most of the rest of the world would welcome a more robust u.s. fp stance, certainly europeans. obama style aloofness is not building relationships. this idea that hrc is going to mess up a few relations is basically blame america first priors
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
