I don't see it that way. Remember, she is the one who failed to give the order to launch a rescue military force to Benghazi, Libya when US personnel including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevenson. were under attack.
The so-called Benghazi cover-up is about Hillary not going full war-like!
Facts just don't fit the view that Hillary would instigate a war with Putin. To date, neocons, and she is a card-carrying member, have advocated war only against small-time regimes lacking in any military prowess. They are for agitating Russia at its borders (See: Ukraine), but that is about as far as it goes.
Despite anti-Putin rhetoric in the campaign, her actions suggest a more reasonable Hillary when it comes to dealing with Russia.
Breitbart, certainly no friend of Hillary, reported in October 2015:
During Clinton’s tenure, the U.S. obeyed Russian demands and backed down from missile defense systems in Europe. The U.S. also signed the New START treaty, which included one-sided concessions by the U.S.Does this sound like someone anxious to go to war with Russia? I don't think so.
I note again, I don't trust any of the presidential candidates on foreign or domestic policy. but the idea that Hillary is anxious to get her hands on the nuclear football is not based on any solid footing.
The scariest thing on the nuclear front that has been said by any presidential candidate is Donald Trump stating that maybe it is time for Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear weapons.
-RW
I've been saying for many years that we now have a military completely trained and equipped to kick the shit out of third-world countries, but pretty much completely inadequate to defend against a real enemy.
ReplyDeleteI'd bet good money that the U.S., China, and Russia can all pretty much defeat stealth technology since much of it is based on the presumption that a radar emitter and receiver are co-located. GPS satellites would disappear within the first few minutes of a conflict with a major power. Aircraft carriers, and other surface-ships probably wouldn't fare well either. And, massively-expensive missiles that can pinpoint windows in buildings don't mean much against an enemy willing to pump out weapons at probably 1/1000 th the cost and launch them at you in mass.
That's the ultimate absurdity of neocon foreign and defence policies.
I've always assumed that Bengali was a targeted assassination. The reason she didn't respond is because either she planned it or knew about it in advance. That's why she had the cover story planned and ready to go.
ReplyDelete"The scariest thing on the nuclear front that has been said by any presidential candidate is Donald Trump stating that maybe it is time for Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear weapons."
ReplyDeleteIf only one nation had nuclear weapons several countries would have already been obliterated. The U.S. would have never nuked Japan if Japan could have retaliated in kind. Either the U.S. or USSR would have been obliterated if one or the other did not have nukes.
Bemoaning nuclear weapons is like bemoaning handguns. It may be awful that they exist, but it doesn't change the fact that they do, and therefore are also a defensive weapons for nations that are targeted by nuclear powers like China and North Korea.
So i think it is correct for Trump to say they should arm themselves.
Saying it is wrong is like saying it's wrong for innocent people to own handguns because god forbid to may end up harming innocents.
Sorry, i agree with Trump here. We're not living in libertarian utopia right now, but in a world where nuclear powers are aggressive toward countries that aren't nuclear powers.
It wasn't a love of peace or even cowardice that stopped intervention to save ambassador Steven's, it was the fact that Hillary wanted Steven's liquidated since he had fronted her operation to supply terrorist, including Al Qaeda and Islamic State with weapons. Put the narrative into its correct context and opposition to Hillary is a must.
ReplyDelete