Blackrook
Diamond Member
- Jun 20, 2014
- 22,135
- 12,178
- 1,405
Last night, it looked like she's so frustrated with Putin for Wikileaks that she's ready to start a nuclear war with Russia.
Hillary violates national security at last night's debate?
- Thread starter Historymaven
- Start date
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,614
- 2,220
Vases pronounced Vahzes cuz they were expensive
- Mar 31, 2009
- 106,516
- 89,881
- 3,605
Probably stolen from the WH or State Dept
Maryland Patriot
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 9,966
- 1,394
- 290
she pretty much said that she wanted war with Russia during debate number 2.
and still the idiot libs are sucking the stains out of her shorts for her.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 67,319
- 63,209
- 3,605
How is that something to be thankful for?
The worst thing that can be said about Trump is he is most likely guilty of fourth degree sexual assault.
What we know about Hillary Clinton from various leaks and her career is that she is a war criminal. Thus, it follows, she is the one far more likely to use those codes, SHE is the war criminal, not Trump.
Man you are clueless.
Hmmmm, America's choice, the possible 4th degree sexual assailant, or the known war criminal. Gee, tough choice.
Hillary Clinton’s war crimes are unforgivable. No real progressive could ever support her.
Hillary Clinton's war crimes are unforgivable. No real progressive could ever support her.
Hillary Clinton made Libya a failed state
In an April interview with Fox News, President Barack Obama, reflecting on his 7 years as Commander-in-Chief, admitted that ousting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was the biggest mistake of his presidency. While Obama took responsibility for the failure of Libya in that interview, he relied on the input of Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State at the time....
ISIS fighters parading down a street in Tripoli, Libya. (CBS News)
<snip>
Clinton is responsible for the fall of Iraq and Syria (and the rise of ISIS)
<snip>
One of Clinton’s last actions as Secretary of State was to call for the arming of Syrian rebels fighting Assad. As the London Telegraph reported, Clinton’s plan to give weapons to Assad’s enemies was backed by not only former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, but also by former CIA director David Petraeus and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While Obama initially rejected his Secretary of State’s plan, he eventually agreed to arm Syrian rebels in the goal of ousting Assad.
However, as ISIS began to get a foothold into Syria and Iraq, the “moderates” that received weapons from the US were eventually overtaken by ISIS fighters, who suddenly found themselves in the possession of military-grade weapons paid for with US tax dollars. In a study conducted by Conflict Armament Research, which tracks the movement of arms in war-torn regions, researchers found that ISIS has weapons and ammunition not just from the US, but also from coalition forces that are funded by the US government. The access to advanced weaponry was likely the reason for ISIS’ rapid expansion into Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere.
The consequences of destabilizing Syria and Iraq are apparent. Over one million refugees, largely from countries where the US intervened militarily, fled to Europe between 2015 and 2016, creating the world’s largest refugee crisis since World War II. In this chart compiled by Eurostat, the top three countries people are fleeing are Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq:
<snip>
Yemeni blood is on Hillary Clinton’s hands
Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemen, which started in 2015 and continues today, was made possible with arms purchased by the US government. Since Obama’s presidency, the US has sold approximately $46 billion in arms to the Saudis, with many of those weapons sales greenlighted by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. As US Uncut reported in April, Clinton was particularly focused on making sure the US came through for Saudi Arabia in a 2011 weapons deal. David Sirota of the International Business Times reported that Clinton argued the arms deal was “in the national interest....”
more
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Is Hillary Clinton a war criminal?
I've been seeing people on the news and internet calling Hillary Clinton a war criminal. I've also heard many people at my school me and around me also call her a war criminal.
I don't usually keep up with politics, but I would like to be more well-informed during the election year.
Is Hillary Clinton a war criminal? - Quora
She doesn't want war with Russia....sheesh... she's using our BIG STICK to force diplomacy.
And Russia does not want war with us....We could stomp them out in a conventional war with their Nation, in a Nano-second.... Russia is broke, THANKS to Hillary and Obama, they have no money to fight a war against the USA's red, white and blue Military Monster.......
And Russia does not want war with us....We could stomp them out in a conventional war with their Nation, in a Nano-second.... Russia is broke, THANKS to Hillary and Obama, they have no money to fight a war against the USA's red, white and blue Military Monster.......
Loose lips sink ships. I prefer to think that Daesh are being fed a diet of misinformation. I doubt we'll ever find out. But it always peeves me when Politicians talk about timelines and strategies. DUMB!!!
Greg
And NO, she did not give away any national secrets....
This below is from an article in June....in this article it said under President Carter, they had 6 minutes, now that was in the 70's and things were not as digital as it is today so 4 minutes would make sense....
The “nuclear button” is a metaphor for a complex apparatus that has the president’s brain at its apex. The image of a commander in chief simply pressing a button captures none of the machinery, people and procedures designed to inform the president and translate his or her decisions into coherent action. Although it remains shrouded in secrecy, we actually know a great deal about it, beginning with the president’s first task of opening the “nuclear suitcase” in an emergency to review his nuclear attack options. If we shine our light at the tactical and timing considerations of how a first- or second-strike attack would unfold, and at the inner workings of the nuclear decision process from the standpoint of the White House, we gain a much better idea of a presidential candidate’s fitness for this responsibility. And here it is essential to consider a candidate’s temperament and character—especially in situations of extreme stress. Decisiveness is important, but so is prudence.
Let us say the president is awakened in the middle of the night (the proverbial 3 a.m. phone call) by his or her top nuclear adviser and told of an incoming nuclear strike. Since the flight time of missiles fired from launch stations in Russia or China to the White House is 30 minutes, and 12 minutes or less for missiles fired from submarines lurking in the Western Atlantic Ocean (Russian subs historically favor a patrol area to the west of Bermuda), the steadiness and brainpower of the commander in chief in such circumstances are serious questions indeed. The voting public must ask whether a given candidate would remain calm—or panic, become discombobulated and driven to order an immediate nuclear response on the basis of false information.
This call has never happened, but if it ever does, the situation would be as stressful and dangerous as things ever get inside the Oval Office. The closest we came to such a call occurred in 1979, when the consoles at our early warning hub in Colorado lit up with indications of a large-scale Soviet missile attack. President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, received back-to-back calls in the middle of the night informing him of the imminent nuclear destruction of the United States. The second call reported an all-out attack. Brzezinski was seconds away from waking Carter to pass on the dreadful news and convince him of the need to order retaliation without delay (within a six-minute deadline). Brzezinski was sure the end was near.
What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button?
This below is from an article in June....in this article it said under President Carter, they had 6 minutes, now that was in the 70's and things were not as digital as it is today so 4 minutes would make sense....
The “nuclear button” is a metaphor for a complex apparatus that has the president’s brain at its apex. The image of a commander in chief simply pressing a button captures none of the machinery, people and procedures designed to inform the president and translate his or her decisions into coherent action. Although it remains shrouded in secrecy, we actually know a great deal about it, beginning with the president’s first task of opening the “nuclear suitcase” in an emergency to review his nuclear attack options. If we shine our light at the tactical and timing considerations of how a first- or second-strike attack would unfold, and at the inner workings of the nuclear decision process from the standpoint of the White House, we gain a much better idea of a presidential candidate’s fitness for this responsibility. And here it is essential to consider a candidate’s temperament and character—especially in situations of extreme stress. Decisiveness is important, but so is prudence.
Let us say the president is awakened in the middle of the night (the proverbial 3 a.m. phone call) by his or her top nuclear adviser and told of an incoming nuclear strike. Since the flight time of missiles fired from launch stations in Russia or China to the White House is 30 minutes, and 12 minutes or less for missiles fired from submarines lurking in the Western Atlantic Ocean (Russian subs historically favor a patrol area to the west of Bermuda), the steadiness and brainpower of the commander in chief in such circumstances are serious questions indeed. The voting public must ask whether a given candidate would remain calm—or panic, become discombobulated and driven to order an immediate nuclear response on the basis of false information.
This call has never happened, but if it ever does, the situation would be as stressful and dangerous as things ever get inside the Oval Office. The closest we came to such a call occurred in 1979, when the consoles at our early warning hub in Colorado lit up with indications of a large-scale Soviet missile attack. President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, received back-to-back calls in the middle of the night informing him of the imminent nuclear destruction of the United States. The second call reported an all-out attack. Brzezinski was seconds away from waking Carter to pass on the dreadful news and convince him of the need to order retaliation without delay (within a six-minute deadline). Brzezinski was sure the end was near.
What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button?
Last edited:
I agree, there is Public Talk, what is said to the public to be disinformation for our enemies to hear,
with Private stances that are never revealed to us....
And this is how it should be...if Security and National Defense, is in play....
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,939
- 227,003
- 3,615
LeftofLeft
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2011
- 26,278
- 16,693
- 1,405
Hillary is a walking national security violations. The FBI specifically called out her negligence on data security and she has the audacity to bitch about WikiLeaks and the Russians. What steps did she take to prevent that? Namely, did she uphold and adhere to FISMA and NIST 800-53? Those are Federal Cyber Security guidelines and policies.
It is factual that she was negligent in securing data. If this is what the American People want.......
It is factual that she was negligent in securing data. If this is what the American People want.......
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,364
- 2,645
Very perceptive observation.
It's ok, though - she never signed her non-disclosure document before, during, or after her recent Intel / National Security Briefing.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,364
- 2,645
Alert the Military and the different branches of service - General Winger says they can no longer 'sneak attack' - ONLY the SEALS can.
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,614
- 2,220
Hey, if it'll fit in the suitcase, why NOT?
jknowgood
Diamond Member
Oh so she is drawing a red line like Obama did? Which made is a laughing stock of the world.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,939
- 227,003
- 3,615
Alert the Military and the different branches of service - General Winger says they can no longer 'sneak attack' - ONLY the SEALS can.
Ever tried to move an ARMY?
They are not exactly inconspicuous
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,614
- 2,220
Someone in another thread about this same topic said we announced it ahead of time so most of the ISIS fighters would leave so we could win more easily and make the administration look like "winners." Cynical but another point of view.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
I don't believe we are attacking Mosul. If it was announced it was by the Iraqis. Why does he talk like it is us?
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,364
- 2,645
Ever studied history?
Armies can be pre-positioned in advance. Noticeable? yes; however, You are talking about an ATTACK - an EVENT - a SINGLE occurrence. Armies are not required to give a 30-day advance notice to the enemy of when and they will attack.
There have been cases where nations have nations have fooled the world by declaring they are having a military exercise only as a 'ruse' and have attacked.
'Armies' are not the only ones who conduct 'surprise attacks' Airpower makes it far more easy to launch sneak attacks, delivering enough sudden firepower to enemies to all but take them down.
Perhaps you meant far more that your choice of words confer. At face value, however, they are 'less than accurate'.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 50,575
- 12,349
- 2,180
Well Colin Powell came out and said how many nukes Israel has....
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
The ugly truth of Trump's America first agenda- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 20
-
Why Canada hosts more old passenger jets than any other country — by far- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
