Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who is more likely to start a war?

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 11:17:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Drumpf's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Drumpf was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Drumpf supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Drumpf solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

The odds are 6 for one, half dozen the other. Both candidates are war hawks who care more about military contractors than American soldiers and civilians.
Clinton would risk a war with Russia however, and this is something even Mikhail Gorbachev is afraid of.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 12:12:12 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Before the invasion, with no intel: 'I guess so'
Lol. That's the ONLY thing the left can dig up on him 'supporting' the Iraq war: a half-hearted, forced 'I guess so' on a shock jock's radio show on the one year aniversary of 9/11. This was followed by a quick condemnation of the war In 2003, one year later when the conflict was still popular, which only increased in intensity. Meanwhile, Clinton still only offers denunciation when her arm is twisted, and was still saying that she had no regrets about her vote in 2004, she defended the vote in 2008, and didn't call the vote a mistake until she published her book in 2014. And she should have been better informed, she had access to intelligence which Trump did not, she sat on meetings about this conflict. The idea that "Trump 'supported it' (made one tepid statement in 2002), so he has no room to criticize" is ludicrous.

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...
He supported a surgical assassination, which was very different than the approach which Clinton took (lying to Russia, no-fly zone, support for rebels, etc.)

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

As to war, it's complicated. Hillary basically represents a headlong charge in the same direction (senseless confrontation based on bad neoconservative international relations theory), which is leading to disaster. The video sums it up well.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 12:40:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Trump seems more likely to start a war accidentally. Clinton is more likely to start a war intentionally. If given those two options in a vacuum, and pretending as though the likelihood was equal, I'd go with Clinton. The other problems with Trump just make me want to vote for Clinton even more.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 1:33:41 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 12:40:04 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Trump seems more likely to start a war accidentally. Clinton is more likely to start a war intentionally. If given those two options in a vacuum, and pretending as though the likelihood was equal, I'd go with Clinton. The other problems with Trump just make me want to vote for Clinton even more.

You've read my shlt and know I don't back either. Accident vs intentional, know what the biggest problem is?

Accidental means we are struck out of blathering rhetoric and we respond.
Intentional is calculated and we get 'congressional authorization' vs constitutional declaration.

Luckily, we are still feared 'just enough' that the only strikes will be rogue units (some call terrorists) vs an actual state. They may not fear our military action as most have realized without a formal dec of wear we put over the top rules of engagement in place. NOBODY however wants is to unleash our full might.

Do you have children? There was a cartoon 11 years ago called justice league unlimited. Darkseid invaded earth and was going to win. Anyway, Superman tells him 'now I have a rare opportunity. I feel like I live in a cardboard box, always scared I'm going to hurt someone. But now you present a rare opportunity for me to show just how powerful I am because you can take it, can't you big man...'

Meaning if we truly fought with all of our might, it would really get ugly, and not for us (and I don't mean nukes)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 2:09:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 12:12:12 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Before the invasion, with no intel: 'I guess so'
Lol. That's the ONLY thing the left can dig up on him 'supporting' the Iraq war: a half-hearted, forced 'I guess so' on a shock jock's radio show on the one year aniversary of 9/11. This was followed by a quick condemnation of the war In 2003, one year later when the conflict was still popular, which only increased in intensity. Meanwhile, Clinton still only offers denunciation when her arm is twisted, and was still saying that she had no regrets about her vote in 2004, she defended the vote in 2008, and didn't call the vote a mistake until she published her book in 2014. And she should have been better informed, she had access to intelligence which Trump did not, she sat on meetings about this conflict. The idea that "Trump 'supported it' (made one tepid statement in 2002), so he has no room to criticize" is ludicrous.

True


Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...
He supported a surgical assassination, which was very different than the approach which Clinton took (lying to Russia, no-fly zone, support for rebels, etc.)

True

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

As to war, it's complicated. Hillary basically represents a headlong charge in the same direction (senseless confrontation based on bad neoconservative international relations theory), which is leading to disaster. The video sums it up well.

Hold up

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 2:14:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 12:40:04 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Trump seems more likely to start a war accidentally. Clinton is more likely to start a war intentionally. If given those two options in a vacuum, and pretending as though the likelihood was equal, I'd go with Clinton. The other problems with Trump just make me want to vote for Clinton even more.

I think Trump would be better in this regard given that Congress could reasonably check him
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 2:20:42 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 2:18:16 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:29:38 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Oh Jesus Christ another thread. Fvck!!!!!

???

More trump clinton bs.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 2:25:22 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

I was about to reply to this but saw Skep's post.

"I guess so" doesn't constitute commitment.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 3:37:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 2:20:42 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/15/2016 2:18:16 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:29:38 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Oh Jesus Christ another thread. Fvck!!!!!

???

More trump clinton bs.

The US election is at its climax. The politics thread should be about it
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 4:04:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Neither. If a war is going to happen then it will happen regardless of who's president.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 5:30:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 2:14:15 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/15/2016 12:40:04 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Trump seems more likely to start a war accidentally. Clinton is more likely to start a war intentionally. If given those two options in a vacuum, and pretending as though the likelihood was equal, I'd go with Clinton. The other problems with Trump just make me want to vote for Clinton even more.

I think Trump would be better in this regard given that Congress could reasonably check him

How could Congress "check" Trump but not Clinton?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 3:28:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 5:30:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/15/2016 2:14:15 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/15/2016 12:40:04 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Trump seems more likely to start a war accidentally. Clinton is more likely to start a war intentionally. If given those two options in a vacuum, and pretending as though the likelihood was equal, I'd go with Clinton. The other problems with Trump just make me want to vote for Clinton even more.

I think Trump would be better in this regard given that Congress could reasonably check him

How could Congress "check" Trump but not Clinton?

Because you can't *accidently* go to war with congress checking you. With a plan brought forth and campaigned for by Clinton would pass Congress since passing it through Congress takes effort, eliminating the ability to do something on accident.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 3:40:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 4:04:11 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Neither. If a war is going to happen then it will happen regardless of who's president.

Not true. Candidates have varying foreign policy positions, especially in regards to conflict resulting in one candidate more likely to cause war than another.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 3:58:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 3:40:38 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/15/2016 4:04:11 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Neither. If a war is going to happen then it will happen regardless of who's president.

Not true. Candidates have varying foreign policy positions, especially in regards to conflict resulting in one candidate more likely to cause war than another.

Most wars are prefaced with economic embargoes and military skirmishes, something completely alien to Trump, and homefries for Hillary.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:58:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 3:40:38 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/15/2016 4:04:11 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Neither. If a war is going to happen then it will happen regardless of who's president.

Not true. Candidates have varying foreign policy positions, especially in regards to conflict resulting in one candidate more likely to cause war than another.

You're being too US-focused. If Russia had the desire to start a war they'd do so regardless of whether Trump or Hillary were elected. Do you think if Wendell Willkie was elected the US wouldn't have joined the war? No. Do you think 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Al Gore was elected? No.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:33:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:58:44 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:40:38 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/15/2016 4:04:11 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Neither. If a war is going to happen then it will happen regardless of who's president.

Not true. Candidates have varying foreign policy positions, especially in regards to conflict resulting in one candidate more likely to cause war than another.

You're being too US-focused. If Russia had the desire to start a war they'd do so regardless of whether Trump or Hillary were elected. Do you think if Wendell Willkie was elected the US wouldn't have joined the war? No. Do you think 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Al Gore was elected? No.

Those are specific conflicts that you picked while ignoring all of the other conflicts that would be affected by the candidates. Some conflicts would happen regardless, others wouldn't. For example the Iraq war would not have happened if Al Gore was elected rather than Bush. You're cherry picking
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:35:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I don't really think that the U.S. will get to decide when the next big war happens.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:37:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 3:58:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:40:38 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/15/2016 4:04:11 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Neither. If a war is going to happen then it will happen regardless of who's president.

Not true. Candidates have varying foreign policy positions, especially in regards to conflict resulting in one candidate more likely to cause war than another.

Most wars are prefaced with economic embargoes and military skirmishes, something completely alien to Trump, and homefries for Hillary.

Trump is promising to create huge tariffs with China and Mexico, and "skirmishes" I don't really see relating to Clinton, but not necessarily to Trump either but his comments on Iran sailors was concerning

"And by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures that our people -- that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water,"
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:39:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 6:33:38 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:58:44 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:40:38 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/15/2016 4:04:11 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Neither. If a war is going to happen then it will happen regardless of who's president.

Not true. Candidates have varying foreign policy positions, especially in regards to conflict resulting in one candidate more likely to cause war than another.

You're being too US-focused. If Russia had the desire to start a war they'd do so regardless of whether Trump or Hillary were elected. Do you think if Wendell Willkie was elected the US wouldn't have joined the war? No. Do you think 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Al Gore was elected? No.

Those are specific conflicts that you picked while ignoring all of the other conflicts that would be affected by the candidates. Some conflicts would happen regardless, others wouldn't. For example the Iraq war would not have happened if Al Gore was elected rather than Bush. You're cherry picking

If it's WWIII, which is what I presumed this was referring to, then that is a conflict where the president will not matter.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:39:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Already debunked

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

I have not spent any time looking into this one or verifying any data so I cannot comment.

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Tossing aside any and all political leanings, candidate ties, personal views, etc.; here is what we can state as undeniable fact and "word-of-god", "hand-to-bible" truth:

There is not a single person on the planet, including both candidates themselves, who can tell you how each would react if-and-when they are presented with any choice during their presidency. As there is currently no method available for seeing into the future, there is no possible way of arguing for either side here.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 8:11:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

In a neutral world, I believe that Donald Trump's temperamental issues and disability to remain calm/collected would lead to a higher chance of war than Hillary Clinton.

However, Russia's threats of war and the growing tensions between us and them in the Middle East- which Hillary supposedly helped create- leads me to believe that there's a slightly higher chance of elevated conflict should Hillary Clinton be elected.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
TeaPatriot
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 8:52:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Trump said "I guess so" with no intel and then vehemently opposed it before it began and after it began. You saying hes for the war when he said "i guess so" is either ignorance or malicious in intent

Trump also just wanted Gadhafi killed so another could take control, not with Clinton's rebels and drone strikes which led to the destabilization of Libya and indirectly causing benghazi
Chairman of Economic Forum Recovery
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 9:25:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 8:52:30 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Trump said "I guess so" with no intel and then vehemently opposed it before it began and after it began. You saying hes for the war when he said "i guess so" is either ignorance or malicious in intent

Its malicious in intent

Trump also just wanted Gadhafi killed so another could take control, not with Clinton's rebels and drone strikes which led to the destabilization of Libya and indirectly causing benghazi

Can you link me to this elaboration on how he intended to take out Ghadafia differently?
TeaPatriot
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 11:09:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 9:25:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/16/2016 8:52:30 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Trump said "I guess so" with no intel and then vehemently opposed it before it began and after it began. You saying hes for the war when he said "i guess so" is either ignorance or malicious in intent

Its malicious in intent

Trump also just wanted Gadhafi killed so another could take control, not with Clinton's rebels and drone strikes which led to the destabilization of Libya and indirectly causing benghazi

Can you link me to this elaboration on how he intended to take out Ghadafia differently?

Again donald trump wasnt a politician back then so he wasnt specific. But he never wanted to arm rebels or use drone strikes
Chairman of Economic Forum Recovery
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:54:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 11:09:05 AM, TeaPatriot wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:25:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/16/2016 8:52:30 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

Trump said "I guess so" with no intel and then vehemently opposed it before it began and after it began. You saying hes for the war when he said "i guess so" is either ignorance or malicious in intent

Its malicious in intent

Trump also just wanted Gadhafi killed so another could take control, not with Clinton's rebels and drone strikes which led to the destabilization of Libya and indirectly causing benghazi

Can you link me to this elaboration on how he intended to take out Ghadafia differently?

Again donald trump wasnt a politician back then so he wasnt specific. But he never wanted to arm rebels or use drone strikes

How do you know he "never wanted to arm rebels or use drone strikes"?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:55:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 8:11:37 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 11:03:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
Based on Clinton and Trump's foreign policy, which presidency is more likely to lead the US into another war?

Obviously Clinton when she was in office was for the Iraq invasion and toppling the Lybia leader Ghadafi.

But Trump was for the Iraq invasion
https://www.youtube.com...

Trump supported toppling Ghadafi and intervening in Libya
https://www.youtube.com...

But regardless of the historical arguments of the candidates, is there any other reason to believe that one candidate is more likely to start a war? I'm curious, and I know many members are supporting Trump solely because of Clinton's terrible foreign policy.

In a neutral world, I believe that Donald Trump's temperamental issues and disability to remain calm/collected would lead to a higher chance of war than Hillary Clinton.

However, Russia's threats of war and the growing tensions between us and them in the Middle East- which Hillary supposedly helped create- leads me to believe that there's a slightly higher chance of elevated conflict should Hillary Clinton be elected.

interesting