Monker wrote:Clinton calling for a no fly zone is as much of an act of war as Trump saying he would take Iraq's oil is a war crime.
When Trump suggested this, we already had invaded Iraq over the alleged threat of WMD.
War reparations are not a war crime if the war has already been waged. Complete nonsense.
Iraq had to pay Kuwait after the Gulf War using oil funds. Japan/Germany had to make all sorts of reparations after WW2.
Monker wrote:It is talk, nothing else. The rest is made up in your imagination and is FICTION.
So you are saying that Hillary Clinton is a liar and her words are meaningless?
Andrew expressed dismay that anyone would want Trump in office.
Based on H's bellicose record and rhetoric, I said the alternative was far worse. And I do think we'd be embroiled in a war.
Monker wrote:If Clinton were elected, you don't KNOW that a no fly zone would happen. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't....you absolutely have no clue.
I am just going by her own statements and actions (voting for iraq, "we came, we saw, he died", turning Libya into a failed state).
Monker wrote:Kinda like bombing the shit out of ISIS didn't happen.
Actually that did happen. As usual, you are uninformed.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-really-b ... sed-664844http://www.thedailybeast.com/president- ... ns-per-dayMonker wrote:Or, Mexico paying for the non-existent wall didn't happen. Or, "Lock her up": didn't happen. You have no clue what decisions Clinton would have made after the election. Your head is inventing those decisions based on your own biases.
This is a bizarre line of reasoning. To absolve Hillary of her own war-loving record, you are citing unfulfilled Trump campaign pledges? I am simply taking Hillary at her own word. A no fly zone is an act of war. Implementing that without Syria's approval could set off a nuclear showdown. She ran on that. Whether she actually would have implemented it in office is, like your idol Mueller says, "outside of my purview."
Monker wrote:But, let's say Clinton was elected and a no fly zone became the policy.
You don't know how the world would react. You don't know if it would be positive, or negative. You are only guessing and allowing your biases to make shit up. It is no more credible or fact based than a Clinton fan saying if Clinton were President it would brought peace to Syria because she would have forced the bombings to stop. It is ALL made up bullshit, fiction. Hell, you don't know if a future rebel leader of Syria would have been saved by the no fly zone and he would unite the people behind in a true revolution for the country. You have NO IDEA what would happen if a "no fly zone" existed.
A no fly zone is an act of war. Full stop. When a candidate runs on stuff like that, you don't get my support. Whether it would have had incidental positive consequences is irrelevant.
Monker wrote:"an act of war". LOL. It makes absolutely no difference. When JFK put his blockade around Cuba, it was also an act of war. I'll call it a "no float zone", for comparison. WW3 didn't start during that act of war. So, again, you are just making shit up and saying it would cause WW3 because you are anti-Clinton and that is the FICTION that your brain wants to believe is facts.
You are pretty glib about the Cuban missile crisis. There is a reason why it's known as "13 days that almost ended the world." We came pretty close. Just because we dodged a bullet in 1962 doesn't mean a candidate's dangerous rhetoric should be ignored.
Monker wrote:Saying Clinton's no fly zone would cause WW3 is FICTION based on YOUR biases. It is NOT a fact, as you are stating it.
I am simply taking Hillary at her own word. A no fly zone is an act of war.