Full disclosure: Paul Craig Roberts served in the Reagan administration, so he is not exactly an impartial observer. He did, though, leave the Republican party and is now an independent.
My opinion: the world probably would survive, but it is hard to see how it would be better off after a warmonger's presidency. Death is worse than unemployment.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Full disclosure: Paul Craig Roberts served in the Reagan administration, so he is not exactly an impartial observer. He did, though, leave the Republican party and is now an independent.
My opinion: the world probably would survive, but it is hard to see how it would be better off after a warmonger's presidency. Death is worse than unemployment.
The Pentagon under CIA pressure will spend ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to upgrade ALL NUCLEAR MISSILES over the next 30 years. Cruise missiles will be NUCLEARIZED for an EVENTUAL AND UNAVOIDABLE TACTICAL AND CONTROLLED NUCLEAR WAR. There was no vote by the American public. It is going to happen. The gunsights will be aimed at Iran. It is Muslim and successfully demonized because of their isolation even from Arabs. They are a enemy of Israel. Much to gain. Just a projection of the NEXT nuclear warfare. The U.S. Is the only country to ever drop an atomic bomb on a country, and they did this twice, killing over 300,000 people (no soldiers or weapons). N. Korea is also a possibility to nuke.
One trillion dollars is not chump change. These smart bombs will be used, especially as this arsenal becomes outdated and there is pressure to use that trillion dollar investment for political, social and economic gain. The US is still very much committed to regime change and destabilizing hostile countries.
0
The Pentagon under CIA pressure will spend ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to upgrade ALL NUCLEAR MISSILES over the next 30 years. Cruise missiles will be NUCLEARIZED for an EVENTUAL AND UNAVOIDABLE TACTICAL AND CONTROLLED NUCLEAR WAR. There was no vote by the American public. It is going to happen. The gunsights will be aimed at Iran. It is Muslim and successfully demonized because of their isolation even from Arabs. They are a enemy of Israel. Much to gain. Just a projection of the NEXT nuclear warfare. The U.S. Is the only country to ever drop an atomic bomb on a country, and they did this twice, killing over 300,000 people (no soldiers or weapons). N. Korea is also a possibility to nuke.
One trillion dollars is not chump change. These smart bombs will be used, especially as this arsenal becomes outdated and there is pressure to use that trillion dollar investment for political, social and economic gain. The US is still very much committed to regime change and destabilizing hostile countries.
Nice post, Relax_Dude, but I think it would be insane (as well as monstrously inhumane) to drop nuclear bombs on Iran. The prevailing westerlies would blow the fallout east towards Pakistan, a country that has 120 nuclear warheads per Wikipedia.
They lack missiles with the range to reach the U.S., but it makes no sense to kick a dangerous rattlesnake. There is no telling what might happen.
0
Nice post, Relax_Dude, but I think it would be insane (as well as monstrously inhumane) to drop nuclear bombs on Iran. The prevailing westerlies would blow the fallout east towards Pakistan, a country that has 120 nuclear warheads per Wikipedia.
They lack missiles with the range to reach the U.S., but it makes no sense to kick a dangerous rattlesnake. There is no telling what might happen.
Nice post, Relax_Dude, but I think it would be insane (as well as monstrously inhumane) to drop nuclear bombs on Iran. The prevailing westerlies would blow the fallout east towards Pakistan, a country that has 120 nuclear warheads per Wikipedia.They lack missiles with the range to reach the U.S., but it makes no sense to kick a dangerous rattlesnake. There is no telling what might happen.
Being both "insane" and "inhumane" are characteristic traits of person sapiens throughout recorded history-even evident on the skulls and bones of the ancients with markings of ritualistic torture. If there is a self destruct programming within our DNA, then it is part of the programming for life, and it is irreversible. In other words, we're doomed, and it is precondition for existence to become extinct. All species have become extinct. The more life affirming you become, the more you notice the shadow following you. That shadow is the void from which we came. Death follows life., and life can only come through death. Nuclear annihilation would turn the Earth into stardust, and the life process would begin anew somewhere else. It does not matter who is President-good ones and do called "Peace Builders" have the shadow follow them.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
Nice post, Relax_Dude, but I think it would be insane (as well as monstrously inhumane) to drop nuclear bombs on Iran. The prevailing westerlies would blow the fallout east towards Pakistan, a country that has 120 nuclear warheads per Wikipedia.They lack missiles with the range to reach the U.S., but it makes no sense to kick a dangerous rattlesnake. There is no telling what might happen.
Being both "insane" and "inhumane" are characteristic traits of person sapiens throughout recorded history-even evident on the skulls and bones of the ancients with markings of ritualistic torture. If there is a self destruct programming within our DNA, then it is part of the programming for life, and it is irreversible. In other words, we're doomed, and it is precondition for existence to become extinct. All species have become extinct. The more life affirming you become, the more you notice the shadow following you. That shadow is the void from which we came. Death follows life., and life can only come through death. Nuclear annihilation would turn the Earth into stardust, and the life process would begin anew somewhere else. It does not matter who is President-good ones and do called "Peace Builders" have the shadow follow them.
In a nutshell (has to be in a nutshell because it is far too complex and interconnected), it probably does not matter in the long run who is President of the U.S. Although having your candidate in the Oval Office at least "sends a message" to others about your priorities.
HRC is a CIA head bobber, and will give them whatever they want. She proved this attitude as early as 1960 when she opposed Pres Kennedy and his refusal to give air support to the pitchfork rebels invading Cuba and seeking to overthrow Castro. And she despised him for not allowing the U.S. to bomb the missile sites and seek another attempt at regime change when "all the world" would back up the US if America were to invade. HRC would not stop the CIA from meddling into other countries. In Honduras she helped overthrow the government there in 2009 and Honduras has been in a state of chaos ever since. Benghazi is the tip of the iceberg. Fact is, she is a criminal. She is a liar. Repubs have their issues this year, but on the Democrat side, we have to choose between a Socialist and a criminal. To answer your question, HRC would be more dangerous to world security because the CIA would be untethered and any crazy plan would be approved. If I had to choose between the two, I'd take Bernie, because as a socialist, he would be met with gridlock the entire time in office.
RAFAEL CRUZ (Rafael is his REAL first name) recently renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014, because he knew he was running for President in 2015-16. RAFAEL really is a "Lyin' TED.' He has already proven he is an establishment bobblehead. Nothing more to say. He is losing and it official once the Northeast has had its say. Distant third place is the dagger. Buh BYE RAFAEL!!!
HRC vs DJT; Take DJT for world security. He will help America ake a defensive posture, cut back on offensive weaponry, scale back and reverse regime change protocols and veto attempts to do so. At least I hope so. He will pull back from costly alliances serving the interests of others (NATO).
Regarding nuclear war with Iran: I raised the possibility because there are two geographic factors that even the most advanced and well trained army CANNOT win against: The Jungle and the Mountain. Mountain terrain is the enemy in Iran. The ONLY way to reach Iran's nuclear weapons installations (if any they would be underground in mountain ranges and defended by anti aircraft missiles) is to BLOW UP THE MOUNTAIN! So therefore the answer to your question is that the Pentagon does not GIVE A DAMN about humanity towards man when they are trying to achieve an objective. They want a mountain blown up, so be it. In Vietnam, the jungle beat the US. They tried burning up the jungle with NAPALM, killing every living thing just to see the enemy who was hiding--every monkey, bird and butterfly was killed to help find the enemy--DIDNT WORK.
After the US bombed Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, the ENTIRE stockpile of Cruise Missiles were USED UP and depleted. The new stockpiles are "NUCLEAR CAPABLE" The conventional bombs on cruise missiles may or may not do enough damage to mountain guarded facility. In an invasion, IRANIAN LEADERSHIP would take to the hills. It has already been shown that in Afghanistan, the enemy can hide--this was the Afghan leadership's escape and Bin Laden's escape, was by mountainous terrain. Tanks can't go there--helicopters can't get the job done, jets cannot stay long enough in the air, drones are the best option.Iran looks like the next nuclear weapons 'testing facility' based on the difficulty of terrain for conventional forces and weaponry, and based on the demonizing of Iran that has continued since the 1970s and appears to be no let up by the state controlled media empire we live under.
0
In a nutshell (has to be in a nutshell because it is far too complex and interconnected), it probably does not matter in the long run who is President of the U.S. Although having your candidate in the Oval Office at least "sends a message" to others about your priorities.
HRC is a CIA head bobber, and will give them whatever they want. She proved this attitude as early as 1960 when she opposed Pres Kennedy and his refusal to give air support to the pitchfork rebels invading Cuba and seeking to overthrow Castro. And she despised him for not allowing the U.S. to bomb the missile sites and seek another attempt at regime change when "all the world" would back up the US if America were to invade. HRC would not stop the CIA from meddling into other countries. In Honduras she helped overthrow the government there in 2009 and Honduras has been in a state of chaos ever since. Benghazi is the tip of the iceberg. Fact is, she is a criminal. She is a liar. Repubs have their issues this year, but on the Democrat side, we have to choose between a Socialist and a criminal. To answer your question, HRC would be more dangerous to world security because the CIA would be untethered and any crazy plan would be approved. If I had to choose between the two, I'd take Bernie, because as a socialist, he would be met with gridlock the entire time in office.
RAFAEL CRUZ (Rafael is his REAL first name) recently renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014, because he knew he was running for President in 2015-16. RAFAEL really is a "Lyin' TED.' He has already proven he is an establishment bobblehead. Nothing more to say. He is losing and it official once the Northeast has had its say. Distant third place is the dagger. Buh BYE RAFAEL!!!
HRC vs DJT; Take DJT for world security. He will help America ake a defensive posture, cut back on offensive weaponry, scale back and reverse regime change protocols and veto attempts to do so. At least I hope so. He will pull back from costly alliances serving the interests of others (NATO).
Regarding nuclear war with Iran: I raised the possibility because there are two geographic factors that even the most advanced and well trained army CANNOT win against: The Jungle and the Mountain. Mountain terrain is the enemy in Iran. The ONLY way to reach Iran's nuclear weapons installations (if any they would be underground in mountain ranges and defended by anti aircraft missiles) is to BLOW UP THE MOUNTAIN! So therefore the answer to your question is that the Pentagon does not GIVE A DAMN about humanity towards man when they are trying to achieve an objective. They want a mountain blown up, so be it. In Vietnam, the jungle beat the US. They tried burning up the jungle with NAPALM, killing every living thing just to see the enemy who was hiding--every monkey, bird and butterfly was killed to help find the enemy--DIDNT WORK.
After the US bombed Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, the ENTIRE stockpile of Cruise Missiles were USED UP and depleted. The new stockpiles are "NUCLEAR CAPABLE" The conventional bombs on cruise missiles may or may not do enough damage to mountain guarded facility. In an invasion, IRANIAN LEADERSHIP would take to the hills. It has already been shown that in Afghanistan, the enemy can hide--this was the Afghan leadership's escape and Bin Laden's escape, was by mountainous terrain. Tanks can't go there--helicopters can't get the job done, jets cannot stay long enough in the air, drones are the best option.Iran looks like the next nuclear weapons 'testing facility' based on the difficulty of terrain for conventional forces and weaponry, and based on the demonizing of Iran that has continued since the 1970s and appears to be no let up by the state controlled media empire we live under.
damn I wrote all that over one cup of coffee.Not even 10 people will read it. I will have to put it into my blog. Then link it through Twitter and Facebook.
Thanks for the questions
0
damn I wrote all that over one cup of coffee.Not even 10 people will read it. I will have to put it into my blog. Then link it through Twitter and Facebook.
Based on public polls and comments by foreignl leaders, most American allies are more negative toward Trump. Until we see what Clinton or Trump actually do in power, there is uncertainty about who is the lesser or greater evil.
0
Based on public polls and comments by foreignl leaders, most American allies are more negative toward Trump. Until we see what Clinton or Trump actually do in power, there is uncertainty about who is the lesser or greater evil.
This article is from 2014, but I am unaware of any hard evidence that HRC has become a dovish peacenik since then. A President HRC is NOT the person who will reign in our arrogant, abusive, intrusive foreign policy. Neither will she slash the monumentally bloated military spending.
I'd rather not have a President who campaigned for Goldwater - she was a Republican then.
This article is from 2014, but I am unaware of any hard evidence that HRC has become a dovish peacenik since then. A President HRC is NOT the person who will reign in our arrogant, abusive, intrusive foreign policy. Neither will she slash the monumentally bloated military spending.
I'd rather not have a President who campaigned for Goldwater - she was a Republican then.
HilLIARy Clinton (Corrupt, Lying, Incompetent, Narcissistic Two-faced,
Offensive, Nag) - fired from the Watergate investigation and a law firm
for being a liar and unethical behavior; zero record of accomplishment;
has had a brain injury and lied about it; bias and thick feminist
attitude toward women (lesbian? Huma Abedin?); 64 people who worked
closely with her with died mysteriously; Whitewater cover up with the
murder of Vincent Foster; invented key details about her immigrant
grandparents; pulling a Brian Williams claiming her and Chelsea were
under fire in Bosnia; declined to affix Boko Haram with terrorist
status; "not only dead broke, but in debt"; stole furniture and
artifacts out of the White House; accepted millions of dollars from
seven foreign governments that violate women’s rights during tenure as
secretary of state; had a senior Muslim Brotherhood operative working
for years at the Clinton Foundation; had her own private email server so
she could selectively dispose of State Department classified documents
and avoid prosecution; "What difference does it make!"
0
HilLIARy Clinton (Corrupt, Lying, Incompetent, Narcissistic Two-faced,
Offensive, Nag) - fired from the Watergate investigation and a law firm
for being a liar and unethical behavior; zero record of accomplishment;
has had a brain injury and lied about it; bias and thick feminist
attitude toward women (lesbian? Huma Abedin?); 64 people who worked
closely with her with died mysteriously; Whitewater cover up with the
murder of Vincent Foster; invented key details about her immigrant
grandparents; pulling a Brian Williams claiming her and Chelsea were
under fire in Bosnia; declined to affix Boko Haram with terrorist
status; "not only dead broke, but in debt"; stole furniture and
artifacts out of the White House; accepted millions of dollars from
seven foreign governments that violate women’s rights during tenure as
secretary of state; had a senior Muslim Brotherhood operative working
for years at the Clinton Foundation; had her own private email server so
she could selectively dispose of State Department classified documents
and avoid prosecution; "What difference does it make!"
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Not even 10 people will read it. I will have to put it into my blog. Then link it through Twitter and Facebook.
Hot Forum Topics
