Sick Hillary

From Frontpage.mag. In poll after poll, a majority of American voters have reported that they hold an “unfavorable” opinion of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Nevertheless, there are enormous differences in the policy positions which these two candidates embrace. Following is a comprehensive overview of exactly what their positions and agendas are, with regard to the major issues confronting the United States. In some instances, background information is provided in italicized print, so as to place the candidates’ positions in proper context. A taste;
CLINTON: On March 12, 2003, Clinton went to the Senate floor to speak out against legislation that proposed to ban the procedure commonly known as “partial-birth abortion”—where the abortionist maneuvers the baby into a breech (feet-first) delivery position, permits its entire body to exit the birth canal except for its head, and then uses scissors to puncture the baby's brain and kill it while the head is still inside the mother. Defending the legality of this procedure and condemning Republicans for trying to outlaw it, Clinton argued that any attempt “to criminalize a medical procedure” would compromise American liberty.
Sick!
Trump views this late-term abortion procedure as “terrible” and “not acceptable.”
Full cover of their respective stands on issues can be viewed here. It is most probably more relevant than "10 years ago he was mean to a woman" type statements.  

34 comments

  • “Full cover of their respective stands on issues”
    Not really. It’s an alt.right interpretation and largely fiction. We’re talking about David Horowitz here, a reincarnation of Joe McCarthy who has had as many political positions as he has had wives. He’s a bit like Trump in that respect……
    These are Clinton’s actual policies – https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
    In the interests of balance – http://themessinglink.com/TrumpThreatToDemocracy
    The USA is in a mess right now, but electing a dingbat like Trump would turn a mess into a disaster.

  • Dear 1735099. I agree that the USA is in a mess right now but after reading through Trumps policies I think they might well get the USA out of its current mess. You must agree that the policies of the last 8 years seem to have been bad for the USA. I think HRC’s policies are just more of the same stuff that is not working now. It was watching Michael Moores speech that changed my mind. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc

  • “the policies of the last 8 years seem to have been bad for the USA”

    The USA went off the reservation when G W Bush authorized the invasion of Iraq on a lie. David Kilcullen, who has a pretty good grasp of the history and military reality described it as “f**king stupid”. It will take decades for the “West” to recover from that stupidity.

  • Hello 17…

    You might like to read this: “Report of the Inquiry into Australia’s Intelligence Services June 2004” by Philip Flood. Here is the link: https://fas.org/irp/world/australia/flood.pdf

    Noteworthy is this extract from the report:

    “While these US and UK views were stronger than many others, including Australia’s, it is noteworthy that prior to the coalition’s military action against Iraq on 19 March 2003, the only government in the world that claimed Iraq was not working on, and did not have, biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was the government of Saddam Hussein”.

    If Bush lied so did all but one of the world’s leaders.

    Israel lives or dies on the quality of the intelligence it receives. However, it was taken by surprise when both Syria and Egypt attacked in 1973. In other words, the intelligence the Israelis were getting was wrong. Likewise, Egypt was taken by surprise when Israel attacked in 1967 – the Egyptians were not expecting an attack.

    Keep going back and you will find multiple intelligence failures in all wars and in events preceding wars. I experienced it in Vietnam and I’m sure you did too.

  • So much for American “Democracy”.
    Clinton led the popular vote 60,467,245 to Trump’s 60,071,650 for a difference of 395,595, or 47.7 percent to 47.4 percent.
    Voter turnout was 55%.
    This means 45% of citizens did not vote. Based on the actual outcome, it’s reasonable to assume around half of these did not support Trump.
    Do the maths – Trump was actually “elected” by about 27% percent of US voters (ignoring the Gerrymanders in Ohio, North Carolina and Wisconsin, of course).
    Trump is correct – the US electoral system is rigged.

    The US electoral system is rigged.

  • It would appear that your candidate came out on the wrong side of the “rigged” system. Why would you be squealing like a stuck pig otherwise. When The Don would not say that he would accept the result of the election prior to the election,your side claimed vigorously that his stance was not democratic. Now that he has won according to rules your side agree to we have tens of thousands of your side not accepting the result. As kids of today say WTF?
    Tens of thousands as a percentage of several million is a huge percentage if the reporting is anything to go on :-P

  • “your candidate”
    Please explain. I didn’t get a vote.
    What is hilarious is the support for Trump posted here.
    If he sticks to his promises (extremely unlikely) the blowback for Australia could be disastrous.
    The combination of a cranky China (because his proposed tariffs have stuffed their rate of growth) and the implementation of his stated isolationist policies when it comes to military cooperation are worrying. Some posting here are obviously happy to put ideological allegiance ahead of our national interest.
    We can only hope he is a populist liar. Seems likely. He said years ago (when a Democrat) that if he wanted to be president he’d go with the Republicans because they’d believe anything.

  • Hello 17…

    Back to the extract I posted. Was Flood right or wrong?

    You suggest there is no such thing as military intelligence. Why then are you praising the opinions of Kilcullen?

    As for the US elections you need to understand the Electoral College system before banging on about democracy.

  • “Was Flood right or wrong?”
    Neither – he didn’t ask the right questions.
    Chilcot did, and as that report revealed, if there was justice in this world, both Bush and Blair would be indicted for war crimes – and probably Howard as well.
    Kilcullen saw the light. He’s a civilian.
    I understand the Electoral College very well. That doesn’t alter the fact the Trump was elected by a minority of voters.

    • You can’t understand the Electoral College that well if you think that it’s relevant to go on about Trump being elected by a minority.

      • Simple question, Kev – was Trump elected by 27% of eligible voters?
        A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
        It’s entirely relevant, if you accept the premise that his election is a “movement”, and that is the premise put by many Right wing commentators.
        Bottom line is, our electoral system (like most other aspects of public affairs in this country) is far superior to that in the USA.
        So why on earth do we aspire to the kind of country the Septics have constructed for themselves? I would have thought that it’s way past time to look at our national values (justice, tolerance, and the “fair go”) and construct a foreign policy stance based on these values, not on kowtowing to the Yanks irrespective of how they behave.
        I was well and truly stuffed around by Australia’s blind allegiance to US foreign policy in 1970, the Middle East was stuffed around by the invasion on March 20th 2003, which led to the rise of ISIS, and now my kids are at risk of being stuffed around again by a megalomaniac elected by 27% of Septics.
        That’s what’s relevant for Australians.

        • And if Clinton had won she would have been elected by a similar percentage.
          Your point?

          • Surprised I have to spell it out again, Kev. I’ve made it above a few times already – but here goes. There are three fundamental points –
            1. If the USA is a “democracy” (and I’d argue it’s not), is a very flawed example of the breed. It should not be viewed as an exemplar.
            2. In this country we need a totally independent foreign policy, and with it, a self-sufficient military. Despite the cliche, we are a very different country with very different values from the USA.
            3. We either learn from history, or we repeat it.

  • Nice deflection shot there 17… but no cigar. So I’ll ask again, was Flood right or wrong?

    Or, rather than answer that, would you prefer I provided a list of US Democrats who believed Iraq had WMDs before the war? Tip: the first one is named Clinton.

    Here is one of Chilcot’s conclusions:

    “It is now clear that policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments. They were not challenged, and they should have been.” If you think that’s enough to convict Blair (and Bush and Howard) as war criminals, best you avoid jury duty.

    Here is part of a statement by Blair challenging Saddam Hussein’s “claim” that he had no weapons of mass
    destruction:

    “We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years – contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence – Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
    … Iraq continues to deny that it has any weapons of mass destruction, although no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes it.”

    If Chilcott rebutted either statement could you kindly provide the reference. Likewise could you please advise just where Chilcot accuses Blair of lying?

    We both know Kilcullen is a civilian and we both know he is also a graduate of ADFA. But, I don’t know where he said Bush was lying – could you advise please.

    • “So I’ll ask again, was Flood right or wrong?”
      He was right about this – “A full analysis of Iraq WMD, set out in Chapter 3, concludes that there has been a failure of intelligence on Iraq.” (p176)
      And – “Intelligence was thin, ambiguous and incomplete. The publicly available information, including the large body of UNSCOM material, together with Iraq’s history of use of WMD, deceit and obfuscation, contributed heavily to the intelligence assessments.” (p 177).
      On this “thin, ambiguous and incomplete” intelligence, Howard decided to put the lives of ADF members at risk. You may believe it’s OK to treat the custodians of the nation’s security in this manner. I don’t. To believe that this commitment was OK, you have to believe that soldiers are collateral. I don’t – been there – done that (in 1969-70).
      To ram the message home I publicly refused my national service medal at the local presentation in 2003. The series of presentations was timed neatly to coincide with our commitment to Iraq. The government chose to shamefully use old diggers to drum up support for exploiting serving ADF personnel. I was used back in 1970 – wasn’t prepared to be used again.
      I remain consistent in the belief that we became involved in Iraq purely to kowtow to US foreign policy. I remember telling Ian MacFarlane at the presentation that as a proud Australian, I’d prefer our foreign policy decisions were made in Canberra, rather than Washington.
      “Please advise just where Chilcot accuses Blair of lying?”
      Depends a bit on your definition of “lying”. Is exaggeration “lying”?
      From the report – Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
      “The judgments about Iraq’s capabilities … were presented with a certainty that was not justified,” the report says.
      The UK chose to join the invasion before peaceful options had been exhausted.
      From the report – “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”
      Blair promised George Bush: ’I will be with you, whatever’.
      Letters released as part of the Chilcot report show Blair offered his unqualified backing for war well before UN weapons inspectors had complete their work, saying: “I will be with you, whatever.”
      The decision to invade was made in unsatisfactory circumstances.
      The process for deciding that the war was legal is described as “perfunctory” by the inquiry, while “no formal record was made of that decision, and the precise grounds on which it was made remains unclear”.
      In the washup, Bush was always going to invade Iraq once 9/11 went down. The Yanks had sustained a major dent in their pride. The narrative of WMD was concocted to justify the invasion, which ultimately cost the lives of 4,491 US service personnel and 186,499 civilians.
      “But, I don’t know where he said Bush was lying – could you advise please.”
      Nowhere have I posted that statement. If you really want to ascertain Kilcullen’s opinion, read “Blood Year”.
      You may also care to take a look at this – http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/warfare-expert-david-kilcullen-interview/
      This sad and sorry history is why we need to review our defence ties with the US. For decades now they have caused us nothing but grief and disaster.

  • 2. In this country we need a totally independent foreign policy, and with it, a self-sufficient military. Despite the cliche, we are a very different country with very different values from the USA.
    Yeah, right. Who’s paying for that? Sounds like a typical Labor/Left solution. We are going to have a self-sufficient military…..oh hang on…we need the money for some socialist stuff.
    ….very different country. Yep, so is Britain, Canada and NZ but we still need to work together to keep the Muslim nutters under control.
    No nation is a democracy under the original definition but most western countries are close – including the US. The fact that you don’t like result of any US election where anyone approaching “conservative” are elected by the nation doesn’t mean anything in the scheme of things.

    I actually think the result was a good reflection of what was worrying the people. They voted and Trump is the man – get over it.

  • Hello 17… Nice bit of wobbling there. You wrote:

    “So I’ll ask again, was Flood right or wrong?”
    He was right about this – “A full analysis of Iraq WMD, set out in Chapter 3, concludes that there has been a failure of intelligence on Iraq.” (p176).

    Thank you 17… that’s the point I was making and which you did your best to avoid acknowledging.

    As you obviously admire Kilcullen, listen to him from 6:30 to go until 4:30 to go at: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2009/08/26/2667749.htm

    You will note he definitely does not support your claim Bush was lying (which was what you posted on 6 Nov), but does say the intelligence was wrong.

    Any chance you will now admit you were wrong about Bush or, are you now going to throw Kilcullen’s statements in the bin because they don’t support your claim?

    Finally, Kilcullen may well be right about the war being a mistake but, that is not certain. Had the Americans won the peace as well as the war I doubt you would be seeing the Middle East as it is today. I think you can blame Paul Bremer (Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority) for what happened.

    He was the one who decreed that members of the Ba’ath party were not permitted to hold posts in the post war government. In addition, he disbanded the Iraqi Army. This meant military people were out of a job together with public servants who were Party members. This left both groups unable to feed their families.

    Estimates vary but many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were affected. So instead of the army and police keeping the peace and the public service running the power stations, water and sewerage systems etc chaos ensued and those prepared to cooperate with the Americans turned against them instead. That, I suggest is the origin of ISIS – not the invasion.

    • “Bush was lying (which was what you posted on 6 Nov),”
      That was not what I posted.
      I posted this – “G W Bush authorized the invasion of Iraq on a lie.”
      The historical truth is that no WMD’s were ever found.
      A narrative was developed over a period of time to justify the invasion.
      It was based on concocted intelligence.
      I reckon that concocted narrative can very reasonably be called a ‘lie”. What would you call it?
      “Had the Americans won the peace as well as the war I doubt you would be seeing the Middle East as it is today”.
      Couldn’t agree more – an even better outcome would have been to follow the UN line and continue the sanctions until the Baath regime collapsed under its own weight. But the Yanks had to “get square” for 9/11. The invasion was a political act – not a military strategy. In any case, going to war and failing to secure a peaceful outcome is becoming a pattern for the Yanks – they’re slow learners.
      Bin Laden, in the end, achieved his goal – a movement that spread worldwide.
      That’s how asymmetric warfare works – by harnessing the power of the military superior force against itself. (Newton’s Laws again).
      Attempting to overcome such a movement by military force is rarely successful – refer Vietnam and Afghanistan, and read some more Kilcullen.

  • The simple fact is less populated states would Succeed from the union if it was a popular vote.

    Oh! And I have a “Septic” brother 18C?

    Cheers

    • I think you mean “secede”.
      (Can’t help it – I’m a teacher).
      The problem is not population – but representation.
      We once had a similar Gerrymander here in Queensland.
      It was corrected without much of an issue.
      The Senate takes care of fair representation of the states.

      And “Septic” is rhyming slang.
      Unless you believe that the term “Yank” is offensive.

  • “I think you mean “secede”.
    (Can’t help it – I’m a teacher).”

    You’re so predictable. As for being a teacher, after silently reading your over the last few years I am certain you would abuse the trust and authority to stir up high school kids to protest.

    “And “Septic” is rhyming slang.
    Unless you believe that the term “Yank” is offensive.”

    Evan if 18C was based on intent and not feelings, ether way you clearly have a stick up your butt about all things US.

    Q ‘but I have American friends, I’m a Vet!’

    “The problem is not population – but representation.”

    As slippery as ever. That’s not what they are saying.

    I’m aware of the mistakes the US has made but it’s people like you get in the way of genuine constructive criticism. And played a part in the rise of Trump/Hanson (Newton’s laws).

    Cheers

    PS: Take it from someone that’s been there mate. Trolling the net to top up your self-Righteous indignation isn’t healthy and does not add anything positive so I hope you will find some inner peace before it’s too late.

    • “As for being a teacher, after silently reading your over the last few years I am certain you would abuse the trust and authority to stir up high school kids to protest”
      Hilarious. Most of my 50 plus years as a teacher has been with students with disabilities – you know, the group that Trump publicly ridiculed. It takes a unique form of cowardice to do that.
      To believe that high school students can be indoctrinated by “authority” indicates a total misunderstanding of adolescent development. At the age we’re talking about, if an authority figure says something is white, most adolescents will argue that it’s black.
      “genuine constructive criticism”
      Apparently I’m the only poster on this site prepared to provide this. Without my contributions, this blog would become an echo chamber.
      I will always call bullshit when I see it.
      PS: Your concern for my mental health is touching. Commenting here is a pastime. It helps to broaden and sharpen the mind.

  • Nice piece Gary, but the exalted one will quote you ad finitum into oblivion, because that’s the way he is.

  • Truly 17…, I think you should stop taking those “Beyond Redemption” pills.

    A few points on your latest post on Iraq. Now, it seems Kilcullen, Flood and Chilcot were wrong but, your postwar assessment there were no WMDs was right. May I now call bullshit, as WMDs were actually found? Google the left wing: “New York Times WMD found” for info on the subject.

    As you felt the need to correct Gary on 15 Nov, I hope you won’t me pointing out that your use of WMD’s also on 15 Nov should not contain an apostrophe.

    Moreover, you suggest I read more Kilcullen. Is that because he did not support your claim about lying? Puzzling.

    You also claim a narrative was developed based on concocted intelligence. I cannot find where Flood, Chilcot or Kilcullen say that. But, if I am wrong I hope you will provide the reference.

  • “Google the left wing: “New York Times WMD found” for info on the subject.”
    I did just that (after I picked myself up from the floor laughing at your description of the NYT as “left wing”.
    Look what I found – http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middleeast/chemical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-secrets.html
    From that report – “During the Iraq war, at least 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to aging chemical weapons abandoned years earlier.
    These weapons were not part of an active arsenal. They were remnants from Iraq’s arms program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.”
    Now compare what was reported in the NYT (your source) with what the Bush administration was claiming, and what they used to justify the invasion –
    “In his State of the Union address two months before the invasion, Bush accused Iraq of concealing “30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents” from before the Gulf War. Colin Powell spoke of those munitions in his U.N. address, as well as “550 artillery shells with mustard” and “enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents” — all from before 1991.”
    Compared to the reality (from your reference in the NYT), this is palpable bullshit – https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/
    Read Hans Blix’ 2004 account “Disarming Iraq” in which he describes 700 inspections which did not reveal active stockpiles of WMDs and the CIAs covert investigation of him when his report did not comply with the Bush administration’s narrative. Send me your address off blog, and I’ll loan you my copy. It’s fascinating stuff.
    There is a funny side to your post apart from the reference to the NYT as “left wing”.
    A few years ago, there was some local excitement when a stockpile of degraded WW2 munitions (mostly mustard gas) were found by a mining company at Columboola, west of Chinchilla – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/clean-up-of-wwii-mustard-gas-stash-at-queensland-property/story-fn3dxiwe-1226024225585
    This was not good, as despite the fact that it’s a fairly isolated area, right next door is the Columboola Field Study Centre, a school I occasionally work through. just about every school in the SW Region sends students through there on an annual basis.
    It had to be cleaned up. Using your definition of a stockpile of WMDs, you could reasonably claim that the ADF was stockpiling these weapons in the bush in Queensland.
    We are entering a “post-truth” era – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/clean-up-of-wwii-mustard-gas-stash-at-queensland-property/story-fn3dxiwe-1226024225585

  • Second link in last post in reference to “post-truth” era should have been – http://fortune.com/2016/09/27/donald-trump-lied/

  • Keep on with the “Beyond redemption” pills 17…. I’m told they will also stop you making a spectacle of yourself on the floor.

    Now read the question carefully and report back on the question: Were WMDs found or weren’t they? A simple yes or no will do fine.

    You could also listen to Australian Richard Butler (Australian ALP supporter and ex Chairman of UNSCOM) on Iraq and WMDs: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s695405.htm UNSCOM was a body created after the Gulf War to determine Iraq’s compliance with policies concerning WMDs.

    Or, if that is too painful, this extract from the transcript might be enough:

    “I can tell you that when Iraq says to the world “we have no weapons of mass destruction” – how should I put this economically – they are simply telling a black lie. It’s just not true, OK?”

    I can’t source it but, I can remember Butler stating also: “Of course Iraq has WMDS, I’ve held them in my hands.”

    I’m as impressed by your suggestion that the NYT is not left wing as I am by your earlier claim that teachers are not left wing. Perhaps the problem is that they are not left enough for you and that makes them of the right.

    It’s too bad you did not quote in full President Bush’s statement about the 30,000 munitions in his State of the Union Address before the war Here it is: “U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them”.

    So, to sum up:

    1. Flood, Chilcot and Kilcullen believed the invasion was based on incorrect intelligence and there was no concoction – as you claimed. Here I note you have great faith in Chilcot and Kilcullen and I am mystified as to why you do not believe them.

    2. The Chairman of UNSCOM believed Iraq had WMDs.

    3. The US, Britain, France, Russia and Australia believed Iraq had WMDs.

    4. More than a few senior US Democrats believed Iraq had WMDs.

    5. Nothing you have written shows the invasion was based on a lie.

  • “Were WMDs found or weren’t they? A simple yes or no will do fine.”

    Some weapons were found, but the existence of these degraded munitions was was not the rationale for the invasion.
    The published rationale was this – “The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” (George Bush speech – Tuesday 18th March 2003).

    So Bush justified the invasion by claiming he was protecting “thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other”.

    This was a lie. At no time was the mainland US under threat from Saddam’s regime. Also, by 2003, no other Middle Eastern country was at threat because Iraq’s military was degraded to the extent that it did not have the capacity to launch aggression against its neighbours. Apart from anything else, the “no-fly zone” had eliminated any risk of that.

    The other lie perpetrated by the Bush administration was the mythical link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam.
    This was finally put to rest by the findings of the 9/11 commission. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, “We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with AL-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.

    No militarily significant WMDs were found in Iraq after the invasion, although several degraded chemical munitions dating to before 1991 were. The weapons were filled with Sarin and Mustard Gas. However, the U.S. Department of Defense stated that these weapons were not in usable condition, and that “these are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.”

    So there were actually two lies used as justification for the invasion which killed 4,491 US service personnel and 186,499 civilians, and sowed the seed for the growth of ISIS.

    So, to sum up –

    1. In 2003, the “Coalition of the willing” invaded Iraq on a fictional rationale. That is historical fact.

    2. There is every reason to believe that the Bush administration suspected that the invasion was based on concocted (or at least unreliable) intelligence. This is, however, circumstantial, and not proved historically beyond doubt.

    3. The fact that Bush’s stated rational for invasion (that WMDs in Iraq were an existential threat to the USA and Iraq’s neighbours) was completely false, clearly shows the invasion was based on a lie.

    Something else that can’t be proved beyond doubt is that the invasion was revenge for 9/11. When the United States invaded Iraq, a New York Times/CBS News survey estimated that 42 percent of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And an ABC news poll said that 55 percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein directly supported Al-Qaeda.

    You could assume that this 42 percent applauded when “shock and awe” was released on Baghdad on 20 March 2003. I wonder are they applauding now?

    • I actually don’t care if Bush invaded because he got a knock back from his wife the night before. I don’t care how many WMDs we found but I do know they did exist and were used. I don’t care if the invasion sowed the seeds for ISIS but I’m glad he did attack and got rid of Sadam.

      I look forward to Trump following up on his promise to up the ante and if he does and the Left/Progressives/US liberals and US haters like yourself say, at a later date, that Trump “sowed the seeds ‘ for another acronym of uncivilized behaviour then well and good. We can then attack that acronym and beat them into submission until the very last uncivilized Muslim bastard in the Middle East understands that the world will not put up with Islamic religious ideologies and their continual subjugation of women, raping of young girls, sex slave trading, beheading of innocents, slaughtering of local Christians, slaughtering of POWs and murderous attacks on innocent Christians in Western nations just because they are Christians.

      They simply need to be put down like the dogs they are and no amount of Left wing ranting will change that need.

  • In other words, Kev, it doesn’t matter how many die, so long as we always have an enemy to kill.
    Conventional warfare “bombing the sh*t” out of ISIS/the VC/ the Sandanistas (strike out whichever does not apply) can destroy a nation state, but it actually contributes to the rise of ratbag ideologies. The sad history of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan tell us that – petrol on a fire……
    I would have thought that any cursory examination of 20th and early 21st century history makes it abundantly clear that asymmetrical conflict is a whole other ball game, that the Yanks lack the capacity to understand.
    All they seem to be able to manage is to enlarge the vicious circle of war and conflict.
    Perhaps I’m naive, but I dream of a better world for my children and grandchildren.

    • Perhaps I’m naive, but I dream of a better world for my children and grandchildren.
      Yes you are naive. The only way to have a better world for your kids is to keep on suppressing the bastards.
      History tells you that mate.
      The Yanks are only enlarging the circle in reaction to the uncivilized pricks in the ME. If the Muslims stopped their attacks the US, and us, could concentrate on a better world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *