west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 30,712
So you view Trump as slightly less dangerous?And what's Iran's position at the moment regarding the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the situation with hezbollah?
Did Clinton say that she regarded a cyber attack the same as any other attack and she'd respond with the military?
Don't make the mistake of assuming that my dislike of Clinton is somehow an endorsement of trump because I promise you, it isn't. I just view him as slightly less dangerous, globally, than her.
If she had won the election, by now, one of two situations would have occurred. Assad would be either dead or in exile and a collection of isis and Al nusra would be running Syria. Or the Russians and iranians would have fronted up the western backed forces and the escalation would be catastrophic. I have no doubt that in that escalation, Israel would have been attacked. Israel is always going to be the number one target.
Unless they can be persuaded not to retaliate as in the gulf war with saddams scuds.
The Trump who is:
- ramping up the rhetoric with a nuclear armed North Korea
- trying to tear up the Iran deal that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons
- inciting the Arab world to violence by upsetting the consensus about Jerusalem
- threatening the US commitment to NATO
As for the situation in Syria, it's a complete clusterfuck anyway and it's anybody's guess whether it would or even could be worse with a different American leader. As it is now, he's basically handed it over to Russia and its allies.
Apart from all that he's doing his best to destroy the planet with his anti-environmental policies.
But it would be much worse if Hillary was president with all those emails to answer for.