Which Presidential candidate is least likely to get us more involved in Syria?

[UCFBS]

It quite obvious that former 2 term Governor of Massachusetts Bill Weld, will capture the state for the Libertarian Party.

I would just like to see 2 things.

1) (most likely) Johnson-Weld get 5%, so we can end this nearly 1M physical signature requirement over 50 states and open up subsidy after 45 years of the party, and ...
2) (less likely) Johnson taking 2-3 states, and McMullin taking Utah, results in neither Hillary nor Trump getting the required 270 electorates. This is now far less likely than just a month ago, with Hillary still breaking 300 in many polls if 3rd parties get 3-4 states.

As far as Syria, just like Libya, Clinton-Obama are now responsible for 2 regime changes. Even Clinton sold NATO on regime change in Libya when they were against it. She told the President it would be over in 3 weeks, and instead, it was over 3 months. This is why President Obama is the first President to ever violate the War Powers Act, and set the precedent for endless war.

And people want to send more money to the same, single US government entity that can declare war, let alone be a single, 'lobbyists special interest clearing house'? Not one, single Democratic, Green or other voter has ever answered why we should do that! If you really think government is better than charity, then please, please advocate to keep it at the state and local levels where lobbyists have to visit 51+ places and they do not have the power to declare war!

 

[UCFBS]

Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-2-missile-powerful-enough-to-wipe-out-uk-fr/

I'm so glad Secretary of State Clinton (yes, hit the fact checkers) signed our 'deal' with the Russians that let's them develop new, offensive capabilities while our deterrent -- which we are prevented from developing per the agreement -- continues to be 50 year-old Minuteman et al. (after we destroyed the III aka Peacekeeper).

"But, but, but ... MAD is the deterrent!" -- apologists

Yeah ... but only if the Russians think it still works or is remotely accurate and still capable.

W. tried to address this in the '00s, and even every single nation in NATO agreed it was needed. But the US media demonized the requirements, riled the American people up about 'W's warmongering' (don't get me started on Georgia either), so W. was forced to drop it. And so ... Hillary Clinton signed this agreement, which is 100% appeasement, while the President ended all NMD development and reneged on both NATO, Japan (who he later relented on) and South Korea (who finally demanded it too) on deploying incomplete, theater-only defensive systems like THAAD.

The Russians continue to develop new, offensive SS systems, all while the S-400/S-500 is leapfrogging THAAD in sensory, and improving in actual intercept.

Yes, it's "imbalance" ... greatly out of our favor. It's worse now than when Carter left in 1980. Not my words, but NATO's. No wonder none of our allies trust us any more!

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-2-missile-powerful-enough-to-wipe-out-uk-fr/

I'm so glad Secretary of State Clinton (yes, hit the fact checkers) signed our 'deal' with the Russians that let's them develop new, offensive capabilities while our deterrent -- which we are prevented from developing per the agreement -- continues to be 50 year-old Minuteman et al. (after we destroyed the III aka Peacekeeper).

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (aka Minuteman replacement) RFP went out earlier this year. So development is in work but is years, if not decades, away from deployment. There's also discussion on the Submarine Launch Ballistic Missile replacement with the Navy, but that's also decades away.

 

[UCFBS]

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (aka Minuteman replacement) RFP went out earlier this year. So development is in work but is years, if not decades, away from deployment.

The said thing is that I pundits don't need to say much. The administration reversing 180 degrees from its first 6-7 years is its own admission.

There's also discussion on the Submarine Launch Ballistic Missile replacement with the Navy, but that's also decades away.

At least the USN provides a decent deterrent. If it wasn't for them, we'd really be in trouble.

 

[knightsagainstblmandzog]

War is good for "The Clinton Foundation".
All those Military industries paying to get their perks.
Whose sons are going?
Bill Clinton's half breed?
The minimum wage Mexicans?
The whites who live in tent cities?
The Top Cats precious sons?