President Trump

[Don1]

esp eastern europeans who have an affinity to Putin ( she will start WW 3) Ironic isnt it , she will start it and not the militarily aggressive Putin .That line of thinking speaks for itself the option is a workable Trump who would submit to the militarily aggresive Putin..

LOL! You're falling for the corporate media propaganda

Yes...Russia under Putin is far more assertive than the post-collapse government of Yeltsin. But to suggest Putin is more "militarily aggressive" than the average US president (much less a President Killary) is at odds with the facts. As logical people we depend on facts

Let's examine merely the facts of the last 15 years of "peace-loving" USA and its direct & proxy military interventions:

Afghanistan invasion: Longest war in US history & still ongoing. 100K+ dead
Life cycle war costs ~$1.5 TRILLION

Iraq invasion: 2nd longest war in US history & still ongoing. 250K+ dead. Illegal regime change executed. ISIS/ISIL created from the chaos...and the Islamist madness metastasizing globally
Life cycle costs ~$3 TRILLION

Libya bombing: Illegal regime change executed. 75K+ dead. Country torn apart with no functioning government. Chaos spread throughout N Africa

Syria regime change op. ~300K dead. US arming & supporting so-called "rebels" who are openly allied with declared ISIS/Al Nusra terrorists. Country torn apart

Yemen bombing: US supporting & arming Saudi Arabia & Gulf states in that war ~30K dead (so far).

This is the epitome of "military aggressiveness" If any other country had performed these works...it would be condemned.

Now some may agree with the political motives behind these awful military interventions...and see the US as some kind of savior. But that would be further buying into nonsensical corporate media & govt propaganda.

In reality these US interventions are disasters of historic proportions

[Sir X]

Give me a revision on that history post Bush ,present day Obama governance,when Clinton was a part of that governance.Thats my context.I could go back to vietnam or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.I am talking about Obama's forgein policy to engage before going to war,granted it hasn't all been a success(resisting the temptation of a no fly zone in Syria or putting back massive ground troops in Syria/Iraq).I believe Putin has been the aggressor in Europe ,in the middle East,where the USA scaled troops down he scaled up troops,and against the USA democratic system with cyber,wiki attacks and the Manchurian candidate in Trump.

I might be fooled but mi nuh suh fool.

[Sir X]

To reinforce my point: Obama sent Clinton to engage Putin on a reset,he took it for weakness.This could explain his fear of a Clinton presidency.

[Don1]

Give me a revision on that history post Bush ,present day Obama governance,when Clinton was a part of that governance.Thats my context.I could go back to vietnam or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

This is about recent geopolitical events since Putin's emergence

I am talking about Obama's forgein policy to engage before going to war,granted it hasn't all been a success

Actually NOTHING has been a substantial success in recent US Middle East policy

(resisting the temptation of a no fly zone in Syria or putting back massive ground troops in Syria/Iraq).

That would be an invitation to war. Obama has no stomach for war with Russia. And the US doesn't have sufficiently vital interests in Syria to warrant war. Russia has vital interests there and is acting to preserve that govt in the face of yet another US regime change op

I believe Putin has been the aggressor in Europe

Misguided. US moved NATO right up to Russia's border since the fall of the Soviet Union. That's aggressive and Russia responded.

The US sponsored the overthrow of an elected govt in Ukraine that was a key Russian ally right on its border. That's aggressive and Russia responded similarly.

,

in the middle East,where the USA scaled troops down he scaled up troops,

As I explained above the US has been bombing countries and changing governments all over the Middle East by violence. That's aggressive in my view. Perhaps not yours

and against the USA democratic system with cyber,wiki attacks and the Manchurian candidate in Trump.

Perhaps... but no evidence to that allegation has been adduced. Until there's evidence it's merely Democrat party & media partisan yappin to undermine their opponent.

I might be fooled but mi nuh suh fool.

You're definitely no fool....but you may well be fooled on this matter.

The problem is that the US portrays its global warmongering as "necessary" to maintain order i.e. its control of the planet. Then that problem is compounded when Americans are too airheaded to hold its government accountable for the many atrocities committed in their name

[Sir X]

Actually Don,this is about her and the contrast with Trump.Hence the reference to the geopolitical post Bush, Clinton in the Obama cabinet.America has taken a less warmongering posture,you seem to agree with me by saying certain moves would be an invitation to war,Moves which Clinton might make in her presidency.

[Muadib]

God Bless America... now shaddup..

[Don1]

Yep facts are inconvenient.

Mi nuh worship Babylon works...but nutten nah tap yuh

[Don1]

I'm not that concerned about Clinton or Trump...two really horrible candidates

So that's not what I'm addressing

[Sir X]

I kinda figured that out,i have learnt to read the entire text of post,top to bottom to get the flow of a conversation.....hehe...we can have the geopolitical discussion as per the historical context of Russia vs America in another post ,if you like and I doubt we would disagree on much.

What I would say is HRC would call his WW3 bluff.

[Don1]

I'm not always concerned with any particular conversation flow. Not that conformist. But if I see some point that is interesting to comment on it's fair game

[Sir X]

But Don,it affi conform to the presentation of the post or else yuh a hijack di ting.....lol.

Ask Ben.

[Muadib]

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you, " and went on your way."

Long time yuh ah sleep good undah dah blanket deh !

[Don1]

LOL. Afta Babylon enslave n oppress I n I peeps fi 500 years yuh tink mi bizniz wid dem fooliniss deh

[Don1]

But Don,it affi conform to the presentation of the post or else yuh a hijack di ting.....lol.

Ask Ben.

Mi huh bizniz wid hijacking juss righteousness an truth telling 24x7x365

[Rudi]

Russia has not been aggressive. Any objective looking at history reveals that.