The Germans seem to be preparing for a War with Russia!

[muppet]

Garbage.

ISIS is the same group that rose out of the insurgency that followed Iraq II in 2003. Dubya's planners put a premium on securing the oil fields, leaving Saddam's defeated army weapons stores unguarded thereby ensuring these lunatics were armed for years.

The first Islamic State was declared in 2006 two years before Obama. But the men behind it were around for years before that.

As for Ukraine, that has been bubbling away for years also. 'It is fairly accepted' by whom? Recent Ukraine events has been John McCain's gig and he certainly wasn't doing Obama's bidding. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause

The corrupt triumvirate of Yanukovych, Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko were abusing and trading power long before Obama appeared. Some of the intrigue would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. For example, pro-Russia's Yankukovych's arrest of Tymoshenko for a gas deal with Russia. Trump's campaign manager's ties with Yankukovych.

But blaming Hillary for ISIS and Ukraine is moving into Stew territory. Did you know that the 'Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt organisation in history!' - no less. In history! There you go. Just because someone says it, without any back up of course, doesn't mean there is an element of truth in it.

[Ulick]

I didn't say she was responsible for ISIS but oversaw the period when they were rearmed and rose to prominence largely with the help of weapons from US surrogates in Libya. Yanukovych's integrity in the debate is irrelevant, fact is he was democratically elected and subsequently overthrown by US sponsors. That Clinton approves of such tactics supports my assertion that she is an interventionist who sees nothing wrong with meddling in other countries and to hell with the consequences. As I said she is going the main destabilising factor in international geopolitics over the next decade, if she gets in.

[muppet]

Can you give any proof that she intervened in Ukraine?

Removing Gaddifi in Libya was Sarkozy and Cameron's ego trip gone horribly wrong. But you blame Hilary.

Removing Saddam in Iraq and the subsequent well-flagged instability (read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiasco_(book)) was the doing of Geroge W. Bush and in particularly his cronies, but you blame Hillary.

The revolving three headed dragon in Ukraine was revolving long before Hillary came to be an underling of Obama. And when the dragon's head revolved again, you blame Hillary.

[Ulick]

I didn't mention Gaddifi or Saddam, I said she is responsible for the current situation in Libya by facilitating the arming of Libyan jihadis and then facilitating the transfer of arms to northern Iraq to the people who are now ISIS. If you was to misread what I saying that's your problem but it's pretty much a part of the public record now. I'm not going to spend my evening digging out "proof" for you on something that is irrelevant to the original discussion but here's the first Google search return on Clinton and Libyan rebels: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels

As I said, she's an interventionist meddler directly responsible for a lot of the chaos going on in the world today. Oh I also think it's cute that you think there's even a fag papers worth of difference between US Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy.

[muppet]

I didn't mention Gaddifi or Saddam, I said she is responsible for the current situation in Libya by facilitating the arming of Libyan jihadis and then facilitating the transfer of arms to northern Iraq to the people who are now ISIS. If you was to misread what I saying that's your problem but it's pretty much a part of the public record now. I'm not going to spend my evening digging out "proof" for you on something that is irrelevant to the original discussion but here's the first Google search return on Clinton and Libyan rebels: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels

As I said, she's an interventionist meddler directly responsible for a lot of the chaos going on in the world today. Oh I also think it's cute that you think there's even a fag papers worth of difference between US Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy.

Your article doesn't say what you think it does.    You should read it.

As for Republicans and Democrats, I see one as right wing and the other as ultra-right wing. But as for a 'fag papers worth of difference', there is at least one very significant difference. The last two Republican Presidents invaded countries for oil, while the last two Democrat Presidents didn't. Over 100,000 dead is the difference, which you might call 'even a fag papers worth'.

[omaghjoe]

Seriously lads what has Hilary Clinton got to do with this. Germany is preparing for a senario where current geopolitics and diplomacy break down.

Anyway to Ulicks earlier post..

Aircraft carriers are irrelevant to a land assault, what role could they play where Russia's air defences would make air superiority pointless?

Even tho the T-90 is out of date it is still a formidable tank and while on a one one would not come out on top against most of the other modern MBTs their numerical superiority and ability to mobilise would put them on the front foot initially. Russian mechanised divisions outnumber NATO by 3 to 1 or something in Europe.

NATO does not surround Russia there is only two fronts Eastern Europe or the Causacus, and the latter would be difficult going for the Turks and would likely bring Iran into play as well. Any other front that NATO could open would only be part of a longer protracted conflict like Alaska/Siberia.

[muppet]

What has Hillary got to do with it?

This classic from Ulick: "IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII."

I can understand that Trump has his supporters, but must they imitate his lunacy?

Hillary will be about as big a threat to World Peace as her husband was. Which makes her equally the least dangerous likely President since before the Cold War.

So Ulick, what is your real problem with her?

[omaghjoe]

I thought that it was so obvious a leap from nowhere and so irrelevant to the discussion that it wasn't even worth entertaining. But US politics is always good for a red herring if nothing else

Not to mention that her opponent advocates scaling back involvement to NATO which would leave Russia with an even stronger hand in Eastern Europe.

[Ulick]

I didn't mention Gaddifi or Saddam, I said she is responsible for the current situation in Libya by facilitating the arming of Libyan jihadis and then facilitating the transfer of arms to northern Iraq to the people who are now ISIS. If you was to misread what I saying that's your problem but it's pretty much a part of the public record now. I'm not going to spend my evening digging out "proof" for you on something that is irrelevant to the original discussion but here's the first Google search return on Clinton and Libyan rebels: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels

As I said, she's an interventionist meddler directly responsible for a lot of the chaos going on in the world today. Oh I also think it's cute that you think there's even a fag papers worth of difference between US Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy.

Your article doesn't say what you think it does.    You should read it.

As for Republicans and Democrats, I see one as right wing and the other as ultra-right wing. But as for a 'fag papers worth of difference', there is at least one very significant difference. The last two Republican Presidents invaded countries for oil, while the last two Democrat Presidents didn't. Over 100,000 dead is the difference, which you might call 'even a fag papers worth'.

I'm sure the half million dead of Syria, Iraq and Libya are consoling themselves that they weren't invaded by the yanks.

[Ulick]

What has Hillary got to do with it?

This classic from Ulick: "IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII."

I can understand that Trump has his supporters, but must they imitate his lunacy?

Hillary will be about as big a threat to World Peace as her husband was. Which makes her equally the least dangerous likely President since before the Cold War.

So Ulick, what is your real problem with her?

Your defense of her is admirable. My problem with with her is obvious, she is a dangerous interventionist. That is obvious. It wasn't my intention to derail the discussion hence I preceded the comment with "IMO" and was then asked why. You then lowered the tone with your "garbage" opinion. If you can't be civil Muppet then there is no point engaging, I better things to be doing than wasting time with trolls.

[muppet]

Hillary is the greatest threat to world peace since WWII.

And I'm the troll! 

As for Syria, you insinuate (but don't say of course) that this war was Washinton's fault, by laying all of the deaths at their door, or at least that it is somehow equivalent to Iraq. Iraq you will remember was Dubya's response to 911 (which had nothing to do with Iraq) because they had WMDs) which they didn't and the UN told them they didn't. They invaded and occupied for a decade.

Syria is completely different. Yes the Yanks didn't invade. There were a whole kaleidoscope of influences there including Iran, Russia, Israel, Turkey, ISIS,  the Spring Tide etc, etc.

But like Stew - you said it is all Hillary's fault. As was ISIS. And Iraq.

Yes, I'm the troll.

[Ulick]

Is Clinton an interventionist?

[muppet]

Is Clinton an interventionist?

You are an inventionist.

[Ulick]

It's an easy question. Either she is or she isn't?

However it seems I'm not the only person with this view of Clinton. In a largely sympathetic NYT piece from earlier in the year there's a couple of stark quotes which for non-Yanks point to the nature of the woman even if the author doesn't intend it

How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0

"For all their bluster about bombing the Islamic State into oblivion, neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has."

"Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race."

"Just as Clinton benefited from her alliance with the military commanders, she gave them political cover."

"Thus might the gen­eral election present voters with an unfamiliar choice: a Democratic hawk versus a Republican reluctant warrior."

"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."

"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."

[muppet]

"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."

"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."

Wow!

Worse than Cromwell.

Stripping out the opinion of a journalist you are left with the above. 'Should consider sending more troops' and 'partial no-fly zone'. Well damn me but war-mongerers aren't what they used to be.