It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Who do you really think will be the next POTUS?
and who do you want to be President, i.e who will look after the American people best, and at the same time least likely to cause problems abroad?
Thanks :)
Clinton had a clear shot at Bin Laden and didn't take it. He didn't follow through.
Bush certainly dropped the ball pre-911 and that is clear to anyone with some knowledge but Clinton should have finished the job when Bin Laden's whereabouts were well known. This argument about civilians is nonsense.
They were both guilty regarding Bin Laden and regarding the financial crisis. I don't stand on partisan ground when it comes to that.
Obama showed how it could and should have been done.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-clinton-i-could-have-killed-osama-bin-laden/
I think Clinton will win if she doesn't screw up the debates and Bill shuts up. Trump's temperament is the wild card. Bill needs to be muzzled as he can be dangerous if he pops off. Her health could be an issue, I think, like Benghazi, the public doesn't give a damn about her server.
The guys I like never run, they are too smart to put up with the destructive crap that goes with a campaign. republican Colin Powell, and democrat Ted Warner are past and present examples of men who have the management experience, brains and moderate character to make very good presidents. Neither wanted the misery of a campaign run. Some will say they have skeletons they don't want uncovered. Nope, I just think they are too smart to run. Some have wisely said that anyone who badly wants to be President in this world climate is unfit for the job.
The argument that Clinton should have taken out Bin Laden prior to 9/11 presupposes an awareness of the future on Clinton's part that no one can realistically be expected to possess. The argument about civilians being endangered is an entirely valid one. The greatest lever that terrorists have now in finding new recruits is that the US doesn't care about the collateral damage we've been inflicting on the Arab world in our (that is, Bush's) response to 9/11. What you're advocating is that Clinton should have begun that destructive process earlier. That he didn't is to his credit. Now let's cut the crap.
Obama had the balls to take that chance, and he got his man. You can make excuses for Clinton all you want. The bottom line is he was as responsible for not stopping Bin Laden as Bush was.
Only Obama had the nerve to do what had to be done. Once and for all.
Bush gets the rap for both the financial crisis and 911. They are both responsible. That's why no investigation into either matter yielded anything concrete. Both parties indirectly had a hand in it due to their incompetence. Both parties (and Hillary Clinton specifically) also had a hand in the Iraq war.
That is my point.
I have yet to see a valid counterargument by anyone, including yourself, to my points. The whole point of my stating it is to let people on this thread know about this - most on this forum do not, I'm sure, since they are from all over the world. They only know that Bush was on watch when 911/the financial crisis happened and that he went into Iraq.
Most probably have no idea about Glass Steagall and the financial deregulation of the 90's either. That's why I'm mentioning it. Sorry to offend, but facts are facts.
Like I said, on this important matter, I don't stand on partisan ground.
Listen, any one with half a brain knew in 2003 that there was a rush to war. Anyone with half a brain, including most European nations except for Tony Blair (even the British people didn't buy it) knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and that the investigators were being stopped from doing their job by Bush and Co. who went out of their way to denigrate the UN at this point.
Yet, our possible future president, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, went along with the vote for war. She should not be forgiven for such bad judgement. Rather, she should be held accountable for it. That was a political calculation which has had major ramifications for the US.
Since she last ran for office, she has been Secretary of State, and also was involved in the fiasco that is now Libya (the aftermath of that bombing campaign - which is now ISIL). Again, the public should hold her accountable for that.
He will have to explain his past business ventures, employment of illegals, Trump university and all the rest. Those are legitimate things to demand an answer to.
8-|
Keep in mind the drumbeat in 2013, that almost resulted in a full scale assault on Syria. Even Kerry was banging the drum. Only Obama stood firm (good for him - he took a hit politically but it was the right decision).
I truly fear for what will happen post-Obama because the Military Complex is just too freaking strong in this country.
Ghadaffi was a dangerous man, but he died in a very undignified manner. Watch this (it's the casual nature of it that disturbs me):
I also disagree with your view on Syria. The hemoraging of Syrian immigration into Europe is vastly destabilizing to almost every country there, not to mention the hideous slaughter still occurring in the ME. Obama failed by not taking a much stronger role in putting together a Kuwait type of UN sanctioned coalition intervention. Presidents should have the vision to interrupt the march to a horribly destabilizing and terrible slaughter like this. This could lead to WW 3 in the Middle East with Iran, the west and Russia totally at odds. One can also only hold their breath over what is still to occur financially, culturally and politically with the attempt to absorb the millions of Muslims still poring into Europe. This was a big test of leadership. Obama failed.
Disagree again. This was debated in depth on another thread. The only solution to Syria at the moment is to keep Assad in power temporarily, destroy ISIL first and then transition power slowly over a period of time (if possible). If they had gone in they would have fully destabilized the region and fueled ISIL even further because Assad would have been gone. Not only that, one would have run the risk of WW3 with Russia. Trump is correct on this situation.
PS: There have been reports that the US was funneling weapons to the free Syrian army via Benghazi, without the American public's knowledge. Far more went on there than has been reported. I recall CNN at one point saying the CIA was actually in the embassy that night, but they don't report that any more.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-benghazi-testimony-cia-2015-10
Come on now, you're knowledgeable enough. You know this is impossible, because Russia has veto power in the UNSC. The only coalition possible would be a NATO one.
Jake Tapper managed to stump him today.
Trump's interview, where he said he didn't know enough about David Duke to distance himself from him could be the first blunder (for want of a much better term) that Trump has made that may actually stick.
It's a shame that it's Cruz and Rubio that are his chief rivals. Three terrible candidates in the running for the GOP nomination while we have a very good candidate in John Kasich who could actually do the job he's running for. Marco Rubio, who only goes to work forty percent of the time in the Senate. If he continued that as president, he'd be only show up to work for 584 of 1,460 days of his first tenure.
But you are assuming that nabbing Bin laden = no more terrorist threat. Well, that certainly isn't the case.
But you are making the case that by not getting Bin Laden earlier, Clinton is partially responsible for 9/11. This is a stretch. It is likely that 9/11 (or something like it, maybe something worse) occurs anyway.
If anything, it's the lax airport security measures (and the hubris of "nothing will happen here") that allowed it to happen.
Bottom line is the man should have been taken out much earlier than he was. I stand by that comment and opinion.
A poster suggested earlier that Hillary means a two for one and that Bill had left the place in tip top shape. That is an oversimplification, and I am just correcting the record. He did not get Bin Laden (even though he had the opportunity to do so) who was responsible for the worst terrorist attack on US soil shortly thereafter, and he deregulated the financial system, allowing all kinds of risky loans and betting, which led eventually to the financial collapse.