More Hawkish Candidate

[satimy]

So one of the things overlooked this election is that Donald Trumps few coherent statements on foreign policy have been more akin to the Goldwater/ Taft republicanism of anti communism but not as pro military intervention.

Which candidate do you think is more Hawkish?

[GennGreymane]

Both have advocated military use in their campaigns. So both.

[Raldazzar]

Trump, for sure, but i view it as a positive not a negative.

[Venant]

Hillary for sure, she has already proven with her record that she is extremely pro 'regime change'.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump, for sure, but i view it as a positive not a negative.

I am tempted to post the video here of Gadaffi's brutal 'execution' as a counter to this, but ill just have to settle for.

[Paranoid Android]

Trump has said that the U.S. such not be an interventionist country, which I support fully. Of course he then says other shit we should go full invasion on a country. So basically I can trust him on this issue.'

Hillary is by far a Hawk. Which of course I hate.

[Orbitus]

Trump has said that the U.S. such not be an interventionist country, which I support fully. Of course he then says other shit we should go full invasion on a country. So basically I can trust him on this issue.'

Hillary is by far a Hawk. Which of course I hate.

Don't forget, he also asked why have nukes if we can't use them. That would particularly make him the most hawkish person since Harry Truman when he gave the ok for nukes to be used on Japan. Granted it did stop the war and probably saved more lives to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians this way than it would have if the war would have lasted another 2 or 3 years and used bombing runs on other cities in Japan.

[Direpenguin]

Don't forget, he also asked why have nukes if we can't use them. That would particularly make him the most hawkish person since Harry Truman when he gave the ok for nukes to be used on Japan. Granted it did stop the war and probably saved more lives to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians this way than it would have if the war would have lasted another 2 or 3 years and used bombing runs on other cities in Japan.

Reading comprehension, ftw. It's a very legitimate question one would ask based on the sheer stupidity of nuclear weapons themselves -- Why have them, if everyone already knows they won't be used? How are they any form of deterrent? Which is what he goes on to discuss further in the interview, if you bothered reading anything other than the talking points highlighted on OccupyDemocrats.com.

[zenkai]

Reading comprehension, ftw. It's a very legitimate question one would ask based on the sheer stupidity of nuclear weapons themselves -- Why have them, if everyone already knows they won't be used? How are they any form of deterrent? Which is what he goes on to discuss further in the interview, if you bothered reading anything other than the talking points highlighted on OccupyDemocrats.com.

The reason it's a deterrent because it keeps people who have them using it on you.... No matter how bat shit crazy a world leader gets he knows if he fires one off at his enemy his allies will shoot theirs at them, no could stop something like that, at least not yet...

[Orbitus]

Reading comprehension, ftw. It's a very legitimate question one would ask based on the sheer stupidity of nuclear weapons themselves -- Why have them, if everyone already knows they won't be used? How are they any form of deterrent? Which is what he goes on to discuss further in the interview, if you bothered reading anything other than the talking points highlighted on OccupyDemocrats.com.

If we get rid of them, does that mean the rest of the world will get rid of theirs? No, it just means that if we ever get into a pissing match and possible war with countries like Russia, they would more likely use theirs without fear of retaliation. We couldn't really do anything if the entire country is the setting for Fallout 5. And I don't get my talking points from OccupyDemocrats. And even if I did, I don't get my talking points from Breitbart and Cheeto Jesus.

[DeadmanWalking]

Reading comprehension, ftw. It's a very legitimate question one would ask based on the sheer stupidity of nuclear weapons themselves -- Why have them, if everyone already knows they won't be used? How are they any form of deterrent? Which is what he goes on to discuss further in the interview, if you bothered reading anything other than the talking points highlighted on OccupyDemocrats.com.

You don't understand how nuclear deterance works do you? The deterance works without actually using a nuclear missle. The ideal is, "If you fire 1, I fire 1,000 and we are mutually destroyed but if I am going to die from your 1 nuke then I am taking you with me." So you don't need to fire one to keep your nation safe.

Did you know that they date the ages of the whale sharks around Ireland using the radioactive fallout from the first few atomic and nuclear weapons that were used/tested? The radioactive particles spread across the planet and filtered through the entire earth food chain, and it can be found in all living creatures making it possible to date these specific whale sharks to being 400-500 years old and thus the oldest living species on the planet.

And that was just from a few going off. Nuclear weapons should not be used in any situation because it makes the planet uninhabitable, the ideal weapon kills the biological enemy without damaging the environment. The only reason to use nukes now is to deter someone else from using nukes. That is how nuclear deterance works, you don't throw them on terrorist camps to scare muslim terrorists.

People don't need to see a nuke going off every 10 years to know that your enemy countering your nuke with nukes is bad. Intelligent people already know from actual history.

[Venant]

You don't understand how nuclear deterance works do you? The deterance works without actually using a nuclear missle. The ideal is, "If you fire 1, I fire 1,000 and we are mutually destroyed but if I am going to die from your 1 nuke then I am taking you with me." So you don't need to fire one to keep your nation safe.

Did you know that they date the ages of the whale sharks around Ireland using the radioactive fallout from the first few atomic and nuclear weapons that were used/tested? The radioactive particles spread across the planet and filtered through the entire earth food chain, and it can be found in all living creatures making it possible to date these specific whale sharks to being 400-500 years old and thus the oldest living species on the planet.

And that was just from a few going off. Nuclear weapons should not be used in any situation because it makes the planet uninhabitable, the ideal weapon kills the biological enemy without damaging the environment. The only reason to use nukes now is to deter someone else from using nukes. That is how nuclear deterance works, you don't throw them on terrorist camps to scare muslim terrorists.

People don't need to see a nuke going off every 10 years to know that your enemy countering your nuke with nukes is bad. Intelligent people already know from actual history.

Why do you suppose the globalists have pushed the creation of missile shield technology so hard? The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty existed for a reason, and the US withdrew from that treaty and has been extremely aggressive in developing this technology.

[Damajin]

Hillary, by a mile. She's a Kissinger/Albright protege, I'm sure that qualifies her for wings of steel status in hawkdom.

[hrugner]

There's a pretty big fear that Trump would pull back international military and economic intervention to a disastrous level. The idea that people would think he's more hawkish that Hillary is really strange. I think both of these candidates have demented foreign policy goals, but Hillary is the one more likely to cause foreign strife deliberately.

[Mihalik]

So one of the things overlooked this election is that Donald Trumps few coherent statements on foreign policy have been more akin to the Goldwater/ Taft republicanism of anti communism but not as pro military intervention.

Which candidate do you think is more Hawkish?

I voted Trump simply because he is more likely to nuke a random Middle Eastern country on a whim.

[PACOX]

We already know Clinton will shove a missile up your butt if she deems necessary or she wouldn't be criticized about Libya. Do we need to pull up a Trump clip? Agree with her or not, she isn't afraid to shove a missile up that ass.

We don't know what Trump would actually do since he seems to be flopping all over the place these days. Trump seems like he wants to isolationist, only saying he'd fight ISIS because that's to cool thing to say to rednecks. History tells us that US can't go isolationist anytime within the near future (doesn't mean we can't pull back some).

[Venant]

We already know Clinton will shove a missile up your butt if she deems necessary or she wouldn't be criticized about Libya. Do we need to pull up a Trump clip? Agree with her or not, she isn't afraid to shove a missile up that ass.

We don't know what Trump would actually do since he seems to be flopping all over the place these days. Trump seems like he wants to isolationist, only saying he'd fight ISIS because that's to cool thing to say to rednecks. History tells us that US can't go isolationist anytime within the near future (doesn't mean we can't pull back some).

Clinton also will use armies of child soldiers and have her proxy forces engage in ethnic cleansing. She is literally willing to commit any recognized war crime in the book, and we know this because she has already committed several while Secretary of State.

[Breccia]

It is hard to top "bomb the shit out of" so I vote Trump.

[Kaleredar]

Clinton also will use armies of child soldiers and have her proxy forces engage in ethnic cleansing. She is literally willing to commit any recognized war crime in the book, and we know this because she has already committed several while Secretary of State.

Yes, we have to go for peace loving Trump, so he can torture our way to a more peaceful, humane world.

[Venant]

Yes, we have to go for peace loving Trump, so he can torture our way to a more peaceful, humane world.

You know there's a difference between committing crimes and talking about committing crimes. We know that Clinton authorized the formation of armies of child soldiers in South Sudan. Should this not be a disqualifying factor for being president? Well it should be for all of the supposedly 'progressive' people, but I have to say I question the liberal credentials of the crowd that has also allowed Barack Obama to commit his own slew of war crimes. I suppose some people only care about mass murdering civilians when a Republican does it.

[Wells]

Hard to compare the two since Trump's policies are rarely detailed and vary wildly. He'll go from advocating war crimes to declaring a policy of nonintervention in the same speech.