Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well, There are plenty of reasons Republican foreign-policy experts might prefer Clinton to Trump. As a former secretary of state, Clinton has far more foreign-policy experience. On top of that, Trump has broken with Republican consensus by threatening to upend U.S. participation in NATO and rip up international trade deals. His presidency could dramatically alter the way America engages with the rest of the world. That unconventional stand creates an opportunity for Clinton.
In all fairness, I think Hillary is traditional American foreign policy establishment. She is not going to change her hawkish ways. Trump, on the other hand, I can't figure out what he is going to do. I don't think he likes useless endless wars because he is after all a businessman. But who knows? with all these bomb the hell out of them talk, nobody can really predict the future.
No, in fact the have been taking their sweet time getting ready for the attack. Possibly Obama is encouraging it because it helps with his legacy, but Hillary doesn't have anything to do with it so I don't see how it helps her.
There was a special report this morning on the news, tbey've been planning this and training for two years. Its a good thing that Iraqi soldiers, kurds and U.S. are working together to defeat ISIS from Mosul.
Agree. I also agree with the notion of 'darned if they do, darned if they don't'. Hence, if the government of Iraq had said "We will begin our offensive on November 9th", the Trump supporters would have claimed that it was being put off for Hillary's sake. By starting the attack 'two days before the debate' (as if the Kurd and Iraqi soldiers give two hoots about our debates), it is again characterized as an attempt to 'help' Hillary.
I agree with the rational viewpoint that this attack has been planned for months. It also appears to have been timed to coincide with a full moon (which is not unusual; those defending positions desire darkness; those attacking desire as much light as possible).
It was common knowledge that the Allies were planning to invade Europe and so open a 'second' front against the Axis. Hitler knew it, and so had Rommel prepare fortifications. However, the exact date was unknown to Hitler.
Same here. All knew that the attack was coming. Indeed, I think that they (Iraq) actually issued a statement over the weekend saying that the attack would be in the next month or two, only to spring it two days later.
No rational person would characterize this attack as being designed to 'help' or 'hinder' our two primary candidates for the presidency. Well, perhaps it helps Jill Stein, in some way I have yet to figure out. Perhaps Gary Johnson too, although he has a dim idea that Iraq is in Mexico, thus explaining Trump's Wall.
Short enough before the election that the outcome can't be known and all the reports can be positive. Long enough before the elections to help the D's.
Poor Trump - nobody will believe him when he says "Only I can defeat ISIS" - because ISIS is already in the process of being defeated.
Just as an aside, has anyone seen a single ISIS prisoner? After the "epic" battles in Tikrit, Falluja and Ramadi I have yet to see a single ISIS captured, or even dead. When ISIS was on the march, we used to see columns of Iraqi soldiers in handcuffs. If you don't kill them or capture them, how are you defeating them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.