End times a'comin

[wazzickle]

I didn't think you'd turn anything up.

He did say that he would "knock the hell out of ISIS", he was glad the Russians were doing it and he'd like to see NATO dealing with terrorism (which is now a talking point within NATO). Is that what you have a problem with? Because that probably doesn't mean nuclear war.

Certainly possible I imagined it, I'll keep looking.

I have a problem with him withdrawing military support from ex-eastern bloc countries which is pretty much all that's standing between them and russia and war in europe. I don't have a problem with dealing with terrorists, I have a problem with how we deal with terrorists, i.e. bombing the hell out of a country for no reason other than we feel we have to act. We don't have to act, and in my mind, 700+ years of western intervention under various guises (christianity, democracy, oil, terrorists etc) has done a lot more harm than good, and if we simply cease all operations and withdraw, the region will be better off for it. Perhaps not in the short term, but in the long term, no policy of 'k guys we have guns and bombs and there are bad guys over there, so let's do this thang' will ever yield positive results. But that's an entirely different discussion.

[SeriousSam]

I agree that he doesn't make it clear enough in his article, but he did state 'An example of how Brexit could lead to a nuclear war could be this:'.

I've never heard of this growing body of scientific evidence. All the data I have suggest the opposite. Could you link something to back up your claim please? Not looking for a scientific paper, but a good article or opinion piece from a reputable site would be useful.

I'd start with some of the work by Professor Jennifer Richeson. There was an interview with her in New Scientist (18/06/16) on a paper she wrote in 2014...

I will caveat my position on this by acknowledging that when it comes to psychology* and the study of humans I take everything with a massive pinch of salt. So either of us could be right, or in fact both depending on where the individuals live.

*The article I read on the lack of quality peer review and low rate of success for repeat experiments within psychology was a bit of an eye opener.

[SeriousSam]

Trump's position on withdrawing military support is part of a "europeans bitch and moan at us, don't pay their Nato contributions and expect us to do all the work" narrative. It's designed to reinforce the "we are better than them mentality", which in turn is part of "make america great again".

[wazzickle]

Aha

http://europe.newsweek.com/trump-say...l-454902?rm=eu

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6961101.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ump-thinks-so/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011...-and-iraq.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/po...0-troops-isis/

[Xlucine]

I can think of worse, a certain fellow who gave toothbrush mustaches a bad name springs to mind.
It's not Trump or Brexit that's the cause of the problem, they're just the effects, the causes are more complex and they're not political in nature, at least not directly.

That wasn't a free country though - the nazi's never outright won an election. Donald trump getting elected would be a whole different ball game, in part because he's a long long way short of being a nazi, and in part because he'd actually have a democratic mandate.

[TeePee]

Of course, Trump isn't actually going to win. Just like the UK, the US has an electoral system that doesn't do the best job of selecting representatives of the people. Even if Trump has a majority of the popular vote, (as Al Gore did in 2000), he will likely lose the Electoral college vote to Hillary.

[Corky34]

That wasn't a free country though - the nazi's never outright won an election. Donald trump getting elected would be a whole different ball game, in part because he's a long long way short of being a nazi, and in part because he'd actually have a democratic mandate.

You must be defining what a free country is differently than most people then, just because the nazi's never outright won an election doesn't mean German wasn't a free country, and it certainly doesn't mean the nazi's weren't elected, yes they never outright won an election but neither did almost any other party in the short history of the German Republic, you don't need to win outright to form either a coalition with other parties, a minority goverment, or both.

[BobF64]

Even if Trump has a majority of the popular vote, (as Al Gore did in 2000), he will likely lose the Electoral college vote to Hillary.

Which always makes me wonder why the public even get to vote if the Electoral College actually makes the choice.

I know that some states require the EC to make the same choice as the public, but others don't.

[Corky34]

Re: The OP's original statement i came across this article on the Huffington Post that i found rather thought provoking, History Tells Us What Will Happen Next With Brexit And Trump.

[SeriousSam]

It's the same article

[EndlessWaves]

Who knew they'd create the world's first secular government?

Uh...

I don't know what your definition of secular is but the US is hardly the first government to treat multiple religions equally or require that it's members put state above religion.

[Corky34]

It's the same article

That'll teach me for not reading the original article won't it.

[Iconix]

Aha

http://europe.newsweek.com/trump-say...l-454902?rm=eu

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6961101.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ump-thinks-so/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011...-and-iraq.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/po...0-troops-isis/

Which one of those is supposed to be warmongering and endangering nuclear war?:
- Turkey already shot down a Russian plane for approaching US assets, there was no war. There has been plenty of shootdowns between Russia and America. Never has it lead to nuclear war.
- You think Putin or any Russian leader will vow to never use nuclear weapons? An absurd idea.
- Only war could stop a North Korean nuclear program but that would risk a war with China. Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons is the only thing that would deter North Korea from using theirs. So it's either war now or deterrent, Trump is encouraging deterrence.
- Whether you know it or not every American president would intervene in the Middle East to ensure the safe flow of oil. There have been plans for it for over half a century because every country in the world needs oil. Refusing to sell it is considered by every country to be a form of economic warfare.
- ISIS do not have nuclear weapons, and nobody with them is going to ride to their rescue.

The real policy, which he repeats often, is that America is defending a lot of the world and if they don't pay more towards their own defence he will withdraw American defense. If they don't pay. He's not leaving NATO - unless the rest of NATO doesn't increase it's spending on arms. He's not leaving Japan and South Korea - unless they refuse to pay more. He's not invading the Middle-East - unless they ultimately pay for the intervention. His whole plan is to get a better deal for the United States. Democrats and his opponents are simply spinning it into a 'dangerous isolationist' stance. It's not, it's a bargaining stance and it's pretty obvious it is.

[wazzickle]

That's an insanely naive view of american foreign policy. They are not 'defending a lot of the world' out of the goodness of their own heart, they're doing it for: ideological reasons, distractions from fairly pressing domestic issues, arms companies wielding influence. It just so happens that those interests often marry with the local defence interests so they can convince them to help out financially. American foreign policy is a crock of something brown and murky.

To compare Putin to Trump regarding the use of nuclear weapons in europe, in the context of this discussion, is disingenuous to me.

That's very much a false dichotomy to claim it's war now or nuclear proliferation. North Korea do appear to be bat-something crazy (happy, mods?) but that doesn't mean they are. The US stockpile is enough to destroy NK many, many times over, there is no need to make more or encourage other countries to do so.

With regards to the middle east and oil, it's about rhetoric. His rhetoric is way more aggressive than any previous US president. Whether or not a US president would invade is different from outright threatening it. Reacting to economic warfare with tanks is not morally justifiable.

So what about ISIS?

[Zak33]

So what about ISIS?

Isis is dead sadly



there's a new puppy now.

[Iconix]

That's an insanely naive view of american foreign policy. They are not 'defending a lot of the world' out of the goodness of their own heart

It's a nice offer, but I don't want those words in my mouth.

To compare Putin to Trump regarding the use of nuclear weapons in europe, in the context of this discussion, is disingenuous to me.

What's really disingenuous is to say that you have nuclear weapons but you'll in no circumstance use them, even in the face of annihilation.

That's very much a false dichotomy to claim it's war now or nuclear proliferation. North Korea do appear to be bat-something crazy (happy, mods?) but that doesn't mean they are. The US stockpile is enough to destroy NK many, many times over, there is no need to make more or encourage other countries to do so.

Yes it is, but that's his sales pitch - 'You want our defence? You have to pay more.' - he doesn't want to leave, or war, he wants a better deal for the US. He repeats this sentiment all the time, even in the article about oil that you posted - it's right there!

His rhetoric is way more aggressive than any previous US president. Whether or not a US president would invade is different from outright threatening it.

Maybe you don't have enough perspective, but that's untrue. Here's his opposition making a direct threat by the way:



They later went on to make a nuclear deal with the Iranians while she was secretary of state.

Reacting to economic warfare with tanks is not morally justifiable.

Economic warfare has real consequences, especially when it comes to Oil sales. The majority of the third world can't just switch from trucking their food to moving it by electric trains. Food, medicine, transport, everything becomes more expensive - a lot of people will die. It is easy to justify a war in such a circumstance.

BTW he was saying that in 2011 when the price of oil was almost triple what it is today. He's hardly talking about oil prices now. Again, this is not an issue for nuclear war or invasion.

So what about ISIS?

They're not nuclear capable as far as I'm aware. There is no end of the world scenario from killing terrorists in a desert.