• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary will lead us to war.

Where the US gets its oil is not the same as where companies get their oil and profits. A multi-national with foreign subsidiaries does not need to sell oil to the US - so your attempt at a rebuttal is a swing and a miss.

Companies don't control American foreign policy--- even well connected ones.

The fact that we pulled out of Iraq rather than remaining there only cements the idea that it wasn't a war of "colonialism".
 
Hillary was a little hawkish at the time. But again that was the time Bush sold to America the big lie on WMD. That's why Obama is great! How many US senators voted No to the war at the time?

As to Trump, the only thing we know about him is that he doesn't have any real policy stance on anything.


The irony is that Iraq did in fact have WMDs.
 
Trump seems to prefer using economics as a way to influence policy. Hillary is "old school". We are going to have to face the "China problem" one way or another, so if we must have a war there is no point in waiting until China puts missiles on the moon or in satellites. If anyone is going to start shooting, it will be Hillary.

I'm just not sure what will happen if China doesn't back down.
 
The irony is that Iraq did in fact have WMDs.

* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a partial list of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found no weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/wmdsfound.html
 
* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a partial list of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found no weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/wmdsfound.html

Not only did they have them - they used them. Thousands of Kurds and Shia were slaughtered by them. The general belief here is that unless they had bunkers with nukes on racks, it doesn't count.
 
It seems many have forgotten Hillary voted for the Iraq war in 2002. She supports nation building and colonialism. Surprisingly Trump did not support the war.

If we want to see a hawk president bringing back the policies of Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld, you have your candidate and her name is Hillary Clinton.

Shame on you dove liberals voting for a war hungry madam president.

Of course Hillary will get us into unnecessary quagmires all around the world. Her methods in foreign policy are a disqualifying factor for me and it's why I would never vote for her.
 
* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a partial list of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found no weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/wmdsfound.html

Holy **** :shock:

IEDs loaded with mustard gas?
 
I believe we need a cap on wealth, but it would have to be a global one. ... I'm not a big fan of the idea of a global government.

Could they ever be trusted to tell the truth? Diogenes stopped looking for an honest man in government over 2,000 years ago, and mankind certainly hasn't shown much improvement in that area at all since then! :shock:

I don't think most of us would like to be told what we may or may not do - with no dissent permitted - by a group of elites living the good life on another part of this planet, although that seems to be the direction we are being encouraged to accept - "for the good of all." Huh? My life would be the same as the average citizen of any third-world country? I don't think so!
 
It seems many have forgotten Hillary voted for the Iraq war in 2002. She supports nation building and colonialism. Surprisingly Trump did not support the war.

If we want to see a hawk president bringing back the policies of Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld, you have your candidate and her name is Hillary Clinton.

Shame on you dove liberals voting for a war hungry madam president.
Yes, though Donald could go off half cocked .. Hillary's psychology for beating war drums with Putin is pretty obvious: Hillary's Potential H-Bomb Misdirection Against Dad and Bill.
 
Could they ever be trusted to tell the truth? Diogenes stopped looking for an honest man in government over 2,000 years ago, and mankind certainly hasn't shown much improvement in that area at all since then! :shock:

I don't think most of us would like to be told what we may or may not do - with no dissent permitted - by a group of elites living the good life on another part of this planet, although that seems to be the direction we are being encouraged to accept - "for the good of all." Huh? My life would be the same as the average citizen of any third-world country? I don't think so!

Well this is what vote for Hillary will get us.
 
* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a partial list of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found no weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/wmdsfound.html


Are they WMDs? The things Bush and Cheney put the American troops into Iraq for? How many countries got those things? 1, 5, 10, 20, 50... ?

So, if the war was justified, we don't have to worry anybody to be hawkish, Hillary, or Trump, right? :roll:
 
If there's any candidate likely to start a war, it's Trump.
 
* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a partial list of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found no weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/wmdsfound.html



We discovered leaking chemical shells that had been buried since the late 1980s. A leaking shell isn't a "WMD" and neither is a barrel of chemicals.


A "WMD" is a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and one of the rather obvious requirements is, logically, that it is a functioning weapon.
 
We discovered leaking chemical shells that had been buried since the late 1980s. A leaking shell isn't a "WMD" and neither is a barrel of chemicals.


A "WMD" is a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and one of the rather obvious requirements is, logically, that it is a functioning weapon.

Rubbish, enriched uranium doesn't "leak" out of shells.
 
We discovered leaking chemical shells that had been buried since the late 1980s. A leaking shell isn't a "WMD" and neither is a barrel of chemicals.

A "WMD" is a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and one of the rather obvious requirements is, logically, that it is a functioning weapon.

Rubbish, enriched uranium doesn't "leak" out of shells.


I said "leaking chemical shells" not "enriched uranium leaking out of shells"; I might also point out to you that enriched uranium isn't a "chemical". It is an element.

I've already seen plenty of claims like the one you made. The old chemical shells - which once were WMDs but were not WMDs once they rusted through - from the 1980s were found, that much is true. (And it's something of a scandal the way we forced our soldiers to clean them up without adequate protection, training, or post-damage health care).



However, Bush didn't lead us to war on a claim that we needed to dig up old chem rounds buried in the 1980s. He didn't lead us to war because of buried yellow cake. He didn't lead us to war because there were some barrels with chemicals in them that might be used in a WMD.

He lead us to war on a claim that Saddam had WMDs and that those WMDs were a national security threat to the U.S.


The fact that we stumbled across some leftovers from Saddam's long-dismantled chemical weapons program in no way retroactively justifies a war we started for other reasons.
 
I said "leaking chemical shells" not "enriched uranium leaking out of shells"; I might also point out to you that enriched uranium isn't a "chemical". It is an element.

I've already seen plenty of claims like the one you made. The old chemical shells - which once were WMDs but were not WMDs once they rusted through - from the 1980s were found, that much is true. (And it's something of a scandal the way we forced our soldiers to clean them up without adequate protection, training, or post-damage health care).



However, Bush didn't lead us to war on a claim that we needed to dig up old chem rounds buried in the 1980s. He didn't lead us to war because of buried yellow cake. He didn't lead us to war because there were some barrels with chemicals in them that might be used in a WMD.

He lead us to war on a claim that Saddam had WMDs and that those WMDs were a national security threat to the U.S.


The fact that we stumbled across some leftovers from Saddam's long-dismantled chemical weapons program in no way retroactively justifies a war we started for other reasons.

We went to war with Saddam because he violated the terms of his defeat in Kuwait. It wasn't a war over WMDs to begin with, yet tons were found which can only mean they were being manufactured. Gee I wonder what enriched uranium is used for? Probably the same thing they are making it for now, thanks to Obama's "deal" SUCKERS!
 
We went to war with Saddam because he violated the terms of his defeat in Kuwait. It wasn't a war over WMDs to begin with, yet tons were found which can only mean they were being manufactured. Gee I wonder what enriched uranium is used for? Probably the same thing they are making it for now, thanks to Obama's "deal" SUCKERS!

Funny in a very sad way, that the actual inspectors in Iraq were forced to leave the country after they reported they had found ZERO evidence that Saddam was pushing any program to produce WMDs.

"tons" of WMDs were found? Seriously? One must assume you mean the 550 tons of yellowcake uranium which had been in a guarded location since 1991. Yellowcake requires further refining before it can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor and even more processing before it can be used in a weapon. Processing requiring machinery that Iraq did not have.
 
Back
Top Bottom