Clinton actually came across fairly well last night. And I say that as someone who cant stand her. She spoke in reasoned ways about policy, kind of managed to change topic when allegations were made against her, and generally talked personably, and with about as much authority and composure as you could expect someone to have with donald trump in that mood aiming his guns at you. A less capable person than Clinton would have run off stage in tears, but she saw it through and came out of it. Trump was simply ferocious. It wasnt even just HC who was caught gulping in fear a couple of times either. The interviewers could barerly contain their shaking at times. Trump talked about the interviewers being biased against him, but in fact Trump bullied them throughout, and he had Clinton under the cosh. After initially clumsily evading answers, he actually gave some coherent and at times detailed policy answers. In terms of debate, Trump was the clear winner for me. What the American public will think of the bully v the nice lady though who knows. It will be interesting to see which Hillary shows up for round three. Will she take the nicely nicely approach again, or will she dare to come out swining and take him on ?
HC's policy on Syria continues to be a total, total mess. And that's the main reason why I still want her to lose, in spite of seeing the ferocity of a pissed off attump last night. She stated 5 policies last night : 1. Getting rid of ISIS and Assad 2. Imposing a no fly zone across syria 3. Getting more leverage against russia before going back to the negotiating table 4. Arming and training the Kurds 5. Forming stronger coilitions with gulf partners It's a shame noone asked whether by 2 she meant military or financial, but either way she seemed intent on grabbing Russia by the balls. It's not easy to see how she intends to impose a no fly zone without starting WW3, or how she intends to use the Kurds to depose Assad, when theyve acted in a largely non fighting partnership with each other for the first 4 years of the conflict. In short, it sounds like a recipe for disaster. Trump's plan is much more simple. Join the Russians to fight ISIS. Leave Assad to sort the rest of them out. Trump's plan brings the quickest peace to Syria. Clinton's continues to drag it out, and risks global conflict.
1 Doesn't exist 2 Syria and Iran are both almost intractable problems. I don't agree with any US policy on the Middle East but at least Clinton's is just an extension of what has been happening so far which while likely to be unsuccessful is not really risky. Heaven know what Trump might do...
They both outlined what theyd do last night, as above. Trump's policy seems to me like a solution. Clinton's sounds completely unworkable, and a case of just compounding what is already an utter disaster. How you can describe attempting to enforce a no fly zone as, "not really risky" is beyond me.
I think that apples to Trump in general. To say he's unstable is an understatement. Totally unfit to even be considered for such a vital position.
Trump's sounded like he made it up on the spot. Partially because that's what happened. His own running mate didn't know anything about it and has a completely different view of the situation. The big orange twat suggesting working with Russia is hardly a surprise, though. That's why he's there. His own campaign manager had to be sacked because of his links to them and the family's financial connections are well known. The guy wants to emulate Putin, FFS. He's literally a dictator and Trump can't get enough of him. He's threatening the same **** and people still want to vote for him. Silencing critics, locking up the opposition, removing journalists that aren't on message and grabbing as much cash as possible on the way. How can anyone take this fraud seriously?
I completely disagree about Syria. The whole carnage has happened due to outside interference, led by the US, Turkey and Saudi, insistent on taking out Assad. Clinton seeks to continue this policy, which has led to the near destruction of Syria, even though her methods (as listed above) clearly make no sense and risk widening the conflict internationally. Trump clearly states that he seeks to change tack, and join forces with Russia in taking out ISIS (as John Kerry has been recently seeking to do), and to leave Assad to sort out the rest of the mess, which he will be able to do once the US and its allies stop doing whatever they can to prevent him from doing it. Trump's strategy is the clear path to peace in Syria. Clinton's is just a path to further, broadening and never ending destruction.
How can anyone in NATO arm and train the Kurds? Turkey is a member of NATO and have their own issues with the KURDS. It's the same as arming and training the Real IRA to fight the British!
I think that you missed the bit about Assad murdering lots of people out, Rob. That bloke that's been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and the like. You also missed out Russia from the list of interfering countries, for some reason. Lots of blame to go around, I'm afraid. Trump wants to work with two dictators, one of which he's clearly far too friendly with. Most people would have an issue working with one, though attempting to create some stability there is the right way to go. He's only suggesting this because of his ties to Russia, though. You have to remember that this is a guy who wants to use nuclear weapons and fight Iran over some sailors taking the piss. The idea that he's stable is unbelievable, frankly. He's a total nut.
How many people did he really murder and frankly, like Iran and Libya they were run by 2 dictators who in an ideal world would not be there and be run like how we have in our lovely western civilizations. One thing we can say is true that people preferred life under them 2 and assad than the **** show we have right now where theres millions of displaced refugees and people dying far more on a daily basis without their basic needs. Libya was actually a pretty well run country and actually had an okayish socialist regime from what i have read (i may be wrong) until we decided to destroy that country too. I think the part about all the war crimes and humanity etc is because the war started and he's probably thinking of saving his own skin than ending the way of gadaffi. How bad it was before i haven't really researched but if you have links it would be good to be enlightened.
Trump wants to work with 2 dictators, as does Clinton (Erdogan and the King of Saudi). Wanting to remove Assad is nothing to do with moral issues, it's to do with strategic regional ambitions. The difference (as I see it) is that whereas Trump's solution will finally result in peace for Syria, with a stable government left in place, Clinton's will risk a world war, and in terms of Syria itself, at best result in a temporary stalemate, and at worst cause a limitless extension of the suffering. It's all very well to say 'my way doesnt involve supporting a dictator', but when that way actually causes far more death and suffering, the statement becomes somewhat hollow.
He's been committing these atrocities for decades. Here's a pretty right-wing paper's view of some of the recent ones: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...estigators-amass-strongest-evidence-since-nu/ I'd suggest that you save yourself from a nightmare or two and avoid digging too much farther, to be honest. It's not pretty.
Great points Bobby. I've talked to people from Syria, including a guy who claimed to have played a leading role in the early days of the conflict, for drumming up support overseas for the rebels. They all said without question, that if they could go back to how things were in 2010 they would do so in an instant. They also said that Syria was one of the most liberal places in the world, and that if you didnt try to get involved in politics or anti secular activities, then you could pretty much do whatever you wanted. Assad was probably the most benevolant and liberal leader of any country with an equivelant population in terms of religious and cultural diversity. There's no question whatseoever, that the 'rebellion' and the support for it, has caused more harm than it could ever have caused good.
PNP, the article is about the response to the rebellion. How could he have been committing the attrocities for decades before the rebellion took place ? The only actual allegations in the article is that : - Assad set up a team to manage the response to the rebellion - during the war 1,000s of "Assad's opponents" have been, "killed, detained or tortured" This begs the question that I have often asked myself over the last few years : 'what exactly do people expect the government to have done in response to armed groups waging war within its country' ?
He was literally rounding people up, torturing them and then murdering them. How on earth is that benevolent or liberal?
It's quite simple. Assad is in Putin's pocket, so Russia obviously has a vested interest in keeping him in power. For whatever reason, I'll leave you to speculate, that slippery scumbag, Trump, has his nose up Putin's arse. So, it doesn't require a pipe and deerstalker to work out what will happen if the US is actually stupid enough to elect Trump.
I'm not sure that it matters, but there were allegations from the instant that he took power. Human rights activists, political opponents, members of faith groups that he didn't like, journalists, take your pick. He locked up lawyers for criticising the human rights abuses that their clients suffered. He's a fascist dictator. None of this is a surprise or a secret.
