And no, this isn't about Trump insulting Pakistan or some damn place and war resulting. That really isn't how wars get started these days. Trump actually sends the message that he's willing to hold negotiations about our relationships with all countries, because our strength is obvious, and threats aren't necessary.
As for insults, Trump didn't say these things about Vladimir Putin, who runs Russia, the second most capable nuclear power on Earth.
Hillary Clinton did. Trump insults illegal aliens, maybe, but Hillary insults somebody with nuclear stockpiles. Smart. Nothing new about that. During the Clinton administration, she egged Bill on to attack Serbia, which in effect amounted to a big insult to Russia, and all that resulted in a new Islamic state in Europe, Kosovo. And as Secretary of State, she was instrumental in the overthrow and murder of Qadafi, leaving Libya without a coherent government, creating chaos there, and also making Libya into a departure point for Africans moving into Europe, which Qadafi had prevented.
And now she wants to do pretty much the same thing to Syria. With the same results. When you remove a strong man like Assad, or Saddam Hussein, you get chaos and untold human suffering. Most Middle East countries are better off with a strong man, because without one, they have civil wars and chaos until another one takes over.
So your peace vote goes to Trump, definitely not to Clinton. Lest you doubt me, here's Stefan Molyneux on the subject:
Pat Buchanan wrote years ago that there was an understanding between Russia and the US that if Russia permitted Germany to reunite, NATO would not expand to the east. We broke that agreement, obviously. It's almost like we, or our rulers, are angry with Russia for not being communist any more, because we were never this belligerent towards the USSR.
And here's Buchanan on our current pointless standoff with Russia, from Townhall [link].
Trolling for War with Russia
by Pat BuchananSome 50 State Department officials have signed a memo calling on President Obama to launch air and missile strikes on the Damascus regime of Bashar Assad.
A "judicious use of stand-off and air weapons," they claim, "would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."
In brief, to strengthen the hand of our diplomats and show we mean business, we should start bombing and killing Syrian soldiers.
Yet Syria has not attacked us. And Congress has not declared war on Syria, or authorized an attack. Where do these State hawks think President Obama gets the authority to launch a war on Syria?
Does State consider the Constitution to be purely advisory when it grants Congress the sole power to declare war? Was not waging aggressive war the principal charge against the Nazis at Nuremberg?
If U.S. bombs and missiles rain down on Damascus, to the cheers of the C-Street Pattons, what do we do if Bashar Assad's allies Iran and Hezbollah retaliate with Benghazi-type attacks on U.S. diplomats across the Middle East? What do we do if Syrian missiles and Russian planes starting shooting down U.S. planes?
Go to war with Hezbollah, Iran and Russia?
Assume U.S. strikes break Syria's regime and Assad falls and flees. Who fills the power vacuum in Damascus, if not the most ruthless of the terrorist forces in that country, al-Nusra and ISIS?
Should ISIS reach Damascus first, and a slaughter of Alawites and Christians ensue, would we send an American army to save them?
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Illustration found at http://imgur.com/gallery/8cW3K. Gary Johnson was invited to comment also, but he wasn't sure where Syria is.