Susan Sarandon is glad 'dangerous' Hillary Clinton didn't win because 'we would be at war'

Does this mean that the US is not presently at war?

When did the US stop being at war?
 
lifelessheap said:
Hillary has a horrible temper and physically attacks people when she gets angry. She is emotionally unstable.
Click to expand...
You try to hold a human form while people are around in your face asking questions and shit. It's hard being a lizard.
 
Rational Poster said:
Nope, the suggestion that Hillary brought up a no-fly zone with the idea that she was going to shoot MiGs out of the sky is ridiculous.

The criticism in the article isn't that we wouldn't adhere to the terms, but the other actors in the region wouldn't adhere to the terms and we'd have to retaliate.
Click to expand...

I don't know if its part of your post to pretend like anybody thinks Hillary is going to personally shoot down migs, but that is a ridiculous angle if so.

And if you think that its a ridiculous concern when our generals are the ones who were concerned about it and that the risk is war with Russia then you're stupider than I thought.
 
M3t4tr0n said:
Hillary would have started ww 3 and we would be dead! Mean while Trump wants to openly threaten NK on Twitter. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Do you remember when Bill Clinton threatened to nuke NK back in the 90's? Instead, he gave them $4 billion dollars in loan guarantees.
 
Susan S. is nutty but a broken clock is correct twice per day.
 
Anung Un Rama said:
I don't know if its part of your post to pretend like anybody thinks Hillary is going to personally shoot down migs, but that is a ridiculous angle if so.

And if you think that its a ridiculous concern when our generals are the ones who were concerned about it and that the risk is war with Russia then you're stupider than I thought.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We'd basically be daring them to come into our zone in a country that invited them in there when we had no business being in there. If they call our bluff and stand up to us for their ally then we have to look tough and shoot down their shit or lose credibility.

Why even flirt with this scenario?
 
Anung Un Rama said:
I don't know if its part of your post to pretend like anybody thinks Hillary is going to personally shoot down migs, but that is a ridiculous angle if so.

And if you think that its a ridiculous concern when our generals are the ones who were concerned about it and that the risk is war with Russia then you're stupider than I thought.
Click to expand...

Look it was just an idea, not set in stone, how many of Trump's campaign ideas actually came to fruition?

I don't think getting everyone in the area to agree to stop dropping bombs in civilian dense areas is the worst idea anyone has ever had.

A no-fly zone would require an agreement by the international communities involved, if they didn't agree to it, it wouldn't happen.
 
Rational Poster said:
Look it was just an idea, not set in stone, how many of Trump's campaign ideas actually came to fruition?

I don't think getting everyone in the area to agree to stop dropping bombs in civilian dense areas is the worst idea anyone has ever had.

A no-fly zone would require an agreement by the international communities involved, if they didn't agree to it, it wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

I think you're being deliberately naive if you think the no-fly zone idea was to stop dropping bombs in civilian areas.

In order to enforce a no fly zone they would have to disarm Assad's sophisticated air defenses which were positioned in heavily populated areas. Clinton is on the record acknowledging that a no fly zone would incur heavy civilian casualties for this reason alone.

Not only that, she never waivered from this position even when generals were concerned it would bring the US and Russia too close to war. Even if Hillary didn't stand on top of a Syrian radio tower plucking Migs out of the sky with her ar15, the chances that a mig might get shot down for violating the US imposed nfz (have you noticed how ballsy they've gotten over the years) isn't negligible. And there was no way Syria was going to cooperate with that. And there was no way Russia was going to give US control of Syria.

It was a terrible and dangerous idea, but par for the neocon course.
 
Anung Un Rama said:
I think you're being deliberately naive if you think the no-fly zone idea was to stop dropping bombs in civilian areas.

In order to enforce a no fly zone they would have to disarm Assad's sophisticated air defenses which were positioned in heavily populated areas. Clinton is on the record acknowledging that a no fly zone would incur heavy civilian casualties for this reason alone.

Not only that, she never waivered from this position even when generals were concerned it would bring the US and Russia too close to war. Even if Hillary didn't stand on top of a Syrian radio tower plucking Migs out of the sky with her ar15, the chances that a mig might get shot down for violating the US imposed nfz (have you noticed how ballsy they've gotten over the years) isn't negligible. And there was no way Syria was going to cooperate with that. And there was no way Russia was going to give US control of Syria.

It was a terrible and dangerous idea, but par for the neocon course.
Click to expand...

Again, you're just being silly, there wouldn't be a no-fly zone if everyone involved didn't agree to it first.

What about the generals that supported her campaign? Were they just bozos?

The good generals only supported Trump?
 
Rational Poster said:
Again, you're just being silly, there wouldn't be a no-fly zone if everyone involved didn't agree to it first.

What about the generals that supported her campaign? Were they just bozos?

The good generals only supported Trump?
Click to expand...

We're so desensitized to war that it's "silly" to be concerned about escalation.
 
Anung Un Rama said:
We're so desensitized to war that it's "silly" to be concerned about escalation.
Click to expand...

Or you're so partisan you see peaceful discussion with all the parties involved about de-escalation in the region as escalation.
 
peytonlucy said:
Do you remember when Bill Clinton threatened to nuke NK back in the 90's? Instead, he gave them $4 billion dollars in loan guarantees.
Click to expand...
Bu bu but Bill Clinton!

Source it, bro :cool:
 
M3t4tr0n said:
Bu bu but Bill Clinton!

Source it, bro :cool:
Click to expand...
No, I was alive during the Clinton administration. If you don't believe it that's fine. Apparently you are under 35 or weren't paying attention.
 
peytonlucy said:
No, I was alive during the Clinton administration. If you don't believe it that's fine. Apparently you are under 35 or weren't paying attention.
Click to expand...
I was alive too. I just want to see your sources is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,715
Messages
55,436,818
Members
174,775
Latest member
Ruckus245

Share this page

Back
Top