Hillary and Obama has us on the brink of a war with Russia Hillary a WARMONGER!

a reply to: Ohanka

The man is known for extreme exaggeration and flamboyant remarks. Such as the advocacy of employing the Russian Army to shoot birds to counter a potential avian flu threat.

Anyone who pays attention to this man or his statements has just been had.

Tell that to the OP? I think it's bulls# too. This whole "if you elect Clinton it's WWIII!" narrative is bogus and intended to get the easier to control candidate elected.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Right on.

The Neocon's + Neolib's just want perpetual war. Any outsiders (people that aren't their kind of evil) just get smeared by their Criminal Media Attack Machine (CMAM).

Exactly, Clinton supporters will follow Hillary right over a Globalist cliff.

Hillary is a warmonger. It's amazing how code pink and these anti-war Democrats were marching in the street about Iraq and I was against Iraq too but Hillary wasn't.

They claim they don't want war but they support WARMONGER Hillary who wants regime change and nation building throughout the Middle East.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You pulled out one quote from like 5 articles LOL! Your quote is meaningless and I noticed you avoided the issue. Hillary Clinton is a Globalist Warmonger.

She wants war.

Stop avoiding the issue and just accept the fact that you support a warmonger.

a reply to: theantediluvian

But how do you respond to Clinton's intentions of a no fly zone above Syria? Targeted at the Syrian and Russian aircraft?

Stuff like this always has a chance to escalate, rapidly.

This seems like a needlessly reckless course of action on America's part.

Of course I'm not particularly comfortable with Trump's antagonisation and intended hardline stance against Iran either, also a Russian ally.

a reply to: neoholographic

You pulled out one quote from like 5 articles LOL! Your quote is meaningless and I noticed you avoided the issue. Hillary Clinton is a Globalist Warmonger. She wants war. Stop avoiding the issue and just accept the fact that you support a warmonger.

Actually two but it's not my job to run around putting links that you reference into posts on this thread. You haven't made any case, you've stated your opinion, used some buzzwords and made some accusations. Cool story bro.

You seem to have serious confirmation bias that is causing you to cherry pick bits and pieces that you like to make a worldview that agrees with your emotions.

Here's an article from the Huffington Post of all places:

Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine

There’s no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.

Yet Hillary’s connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don’t want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Trump is actually the candidate who wants a reasoned and measured response instead of regime change and nation building throughout the Middle East.

It was Bill Clinton who laid the foundation for regime change in Iraq which Hillary supported and so did the Republicans. In 1998 Bill Clinton signed Iraq Liberation Act which made regime change in Iraq official United States Policy.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Hillary Clinton supporters are supporting a Globalist Warmonger. Hillary wants war!

Nice work OP.
It's pretty clear to me that Hillary is TPTB's candidate.
War is big $$, & the intent is to be in a constant state of war or preparing for war--manufacturing one ''enemy" after another.
In the case of the ME, it's about oil/gas supply & who controls the pipelines.
We'll be fed all kinds of tripe for justification--humanitarian causes, freedom, blah blah. End of the day, it's money & power.
I'm reminded of Ray Bradbury's Fehrenheit 451. We're being fed a constant stream of garbage by the media to keep us fat, dumb, & happy while they wreck the world.

originally posted by: JimNasium

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neoholographic

Russia exposed Washington insider corruption.

So of course we have to hate Russia and go to war with them.

So says our (now exposed) corrupt government.

We better not piss them off too much because We just may need some Uranium, that is if Hillary didn't $ell ALL of it to the Russkies...

Doesn't matter if we did.

Canada is the worlds largest Uranium producer.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You haven't made any case, you've stated your opinion, used some buzzwords and made some accusations

Oh is that anything like Obama and CLintons OPINION about Russia is to 'blame' ?

TRUE STORY.

a reply to: projectvxn

I believe in winning. Inflicting as much pain and suffering as possible until they don't want to fight or they are all dead

Only way to win a war.

There are no half measures.

There should be no 'winning hearts and minds'.

There should be no 'nation building'.

But then again war is an extension of politics. Only other means are used.

Bullets,bombs, and other things that go boom in the night.

a reply to: neo96

Well I see it from a soldier's perspective.

I don't care what politicians and civilians think about what war "should be".

Only idiots think you can pick a turd up from the clean end.

a reply to: projectvxn

Well I see it from a soldier's perspective.

As everyone should.

You all are the ones on the front lines doing the fighting, and dying.

A fact often lost on politico's.

We were always at war with Eastasia; we were never at war with Oceania ... We were always at war with Oceania; we were never at war with Eastasia ... We were always at war with ...

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah, but that was back in 1984!

a reply to: neoholographic

i wouldnt worry about a war any time soon with Russia.

just ask yourself, under which Presidency have we not dropped a bomb on another country, then ask, in the past 3 decades have we ever dropped any bombs on nations whom had any militaristic chance of defending themselves, or what were the color of thee uniforms of the enemies we've been fighting endlessly years after years years...

if history is accurate, we're more likely to start a war in Yemen then with Russia.

- all this Chatter is simply a prelude to a new cold war to involve the East, with China at the forefront, and forge unlikely "allies" in the Middle East, and West Africa.
business as usual.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah, but that was back in 1984!

Sorry. I'd just gotten back from my session at the fun camp, and it always takes a bit of time to reboot.

I liked the last cold war but SOON we will have our very own LBJ... attitude wise anyway.
Not really trusting a thing here mind you ,least evil and all.

a reply to: projectvxn

Wait until they demand you are in fact something ...it's hilarious.

[

a reply to: theantediluvian

How does that differ to anything you do here...on like every thread against clinton... confirmation bias runs strong with all huh.