I thought it would be fun to poll IRON in regards to the US Presidential Election. Even if you are not from the US, vote for whichever candidate that most appeals to you. And please leave a comment as to why you chose that specific candidate.

 

This poll will run until November 7th, the day before the US Presidential Election.

I'd vote for Trump, so I can troll all of his supporters from Nov 2018 to Nov 2020. 

 

This is spot on how I feel about political correctness, safe zones, and liberal garbage that Democrats fabricate in attempt to guilt trip people into believing it. Have you ever considered going into local politics? You tell the truth as is and are not afraid to risk offending someone if they need to be reminded that is not how America works.   If you stuck to those campaign promises, you would have my vote.

 My family always tell me that I would be a good politician but right now I want to be a Marine and do the fighting at the source rather than at the debates. And plus, I've only said what everyone else thinks but can't put into words. I might try politics though.

 

Ever wondered that you could be...the source?

 

 

As for the Muslim issue..... It is all Muslims hes trying to get rid of. He's doing it to "get rid of the terrorists", but he wants to deport them and then refuse to take any from that entire region of the world. Personally I have no issue with a stricter immigration process for people coming from a region of conflict, but deporting people for their race is 100% racist.

 As for the Muslim issue... It is NOT all Muslims he's trying to get rid of... http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-election-2016/ "His spokeswoman Hope Hicks first told CNN late last month that Trump supported banning Muslims from terror states, not all Muslims, as he had said in December. Those comments came after Trump suggested he would allow a Scottish Muslim to enter the US under his latest proposal." (direct quote from the article) So I'm not gonna entertain the rest of that paragraph, especially the racist part.

 

 

 

You can say that its "not our problem", but the arm of the United States Government is long. They have already reached in and gotten involved in this whole mess. That makes it our problem. If we want to adopt the "not our problem" policy (which I don't agree with but thats because I'm one of those "bleeding heart" types who believes that if you have the power to make someone else's life better, then you have the responsibility to do so. You know, great power, great responsibility), then we have to get our hands out of whats going on over there, which will never happen because oil, and destabilizing governments that could threaten Israel because apparently the "not our problem" argument only applies to Muslims.

The "not our problem" argument doesn't only apply to America OR only Muslims... In fact, it doesn't apply at all. You act like America is only the bad guy in every conflict and no matter what happens in the East it is 100% America's fault no question, no discussion. America did not make people have radical ideas that made them create a separate state of insanity. And if you think it is America's fault then do you think that every radical idea ever is because of America? Because based on what you said, ISIS is killing people because of OUR involvement which is just as insane as ISIS in the first place. And if you are a "bleeding heart" type that supports great power, great responsibility then why don't we pressure England, China, Japan, or India to take in these refugees and fight ISIS and pretty much all of the middle east at the same time? Lastly, not only America has gotten into this mess, but so has The United States, France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands even. All have vowed more action on the Islamic States, so do you accuse them of doing this to Syria and other once great but now in shambles countries? Didn't really think so...

 

 

 

Okay so first, the problem isn't the illegals. The problem is that we have greedy asshats running corporations taking advantage of the fact that they can pay those illegals less money illegally to do the same jobs they could hire someone to do legally. They are taking advantage of the situation and thereby making the problem worse. If businesses weren't illegally "hiring" these people, there wouldn't be a problem.

Okay, now this. Let me give you some food for thought real quick, do you think it would be possible for these so called "greedy asshats" to take advantage if there weren't illegals in the first place? No. That's like saying "well it's the leaders fault for punishing these people for crime" but what if there was no crime in this theoretical world? Then there would be no harsh punishments. Just like how if there were no illegals, none would be "taken advantage" of. So that's that.

 

 

 

America has chosen to be the "world peacekeeper" (funny title considering we pick a lot of fights that didn't need to happen). They have chosen to do that because it benefits us in one way or another to be in those wars. We can put our poker face on and pretend that we are doing it for the benefit of some people in that country on the other side of the planet but that's not why we are there. If we are going to stir shit up and ruin peoples lives for our own benefit, then we should take responsibility for the consequences. Not all of them come to the United States anyway, plenty go to the other countries you listed, more so than come to the US actually I believe.

For your last part, saying more so go to other countries than the USA here's a quote from The Wall Street Journal,"Most refugees are referred to the U.S. by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees." So that point is now invalid. Secondly, don't even try to say that we stir shit up for our own benefit. Don't you think the world would be a lot more peaceful if we didn't get The World Trade Centers bombed? Because I do. If that didn't happen war would've been delayed (Obviously it would've happened sooner or later, this was just the straw that broke the camel's back) and if it was delayed, who knows how different things would've been. Also, do you honestly think that we are benefiting from sending our soldiers into these countries and spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on military purchase, upgrade and military upkeep? And you say we do this for our benefit, The reason we fought in the Vietnam war was to prevent the spread of communism. There were no foreign policy gains, there were no military gains, there were no social gains. The only gain was to a small group of industrialist who benefited from the military industrial complex. It was a loss in all respects for America, so we are the world's peacekeepers. Yes we benefit from some wars, but that's because we CHOOSE our wars. We don't just say "Oh hey, Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil, lets completely destroy their government and take them over to monopolize the world's oil industry."

 

 

 

This is spot on how I feel about political correctness, safe zones, and liberal garbage that Democrats fabricate in attempt to guilt trip people into believing it. Have you ever considered going into local politics? You tell the truth as is and are not afraid to risk offending someone if they need to be reminded that is not how America works.   If you stuck to those campaign promises, you would have my vote.

 My family always tell me that I would be a good politician but right now I want to be a Marine and do the fighting at the source rather than at the debates. And plus, I've only said what everyone else thinks but can't put into words. I might try politics though.

 

Ever wondered that you could be...the source?

 

And lastly... huh? I don't get what you mean.

What I mean is that US Armed forces have a certain reputation, well, outside USA off-course, when it comes to civilian casualties.  Wherever, you have intervened, the outcome has been worst than before you were there. The last success was what..Korea? After that, it's just been hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, countries completely wrecked, and their populations not v. happy about it and the extreme situation leading to extremists. So my point is related to your sentence that you'd rather fight at the source than debate, but, you are the source itself, your intervention is the source, death of thousands of civilians due to your direct action is part of the source.

What I mean is that US Armed forces have a certain reputation, well, outside USA off-course, when it comes to civilian casualties.  Wherever, you have intervened, the outcome has been worst than before you were there. The last success was what..Korea? After that, it's just been hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, countries completely wrecked, and their populations not v. happy about it and the extreme situation leading to extremists. So my point is related to your sentence that you'd rather fight at the source than debate, but, you are the source itself, your intervention is the source, death of thousands of civilians due to your direct action is part of the source.

Death of a thousand civilians due to my direct actions? So if I kill a terrorist about to detonate an IED that will kill 5 soldiers and wound 4, you are saying that I really just killed a thousand civilians?

 

What I mean is that US Armed forces have a certain reputation, well, outside USA off-course, when it comes to civilian casualties.  Wherever, you have intervened, the outcome has been worst than before you were there. The last success was what..Korea? After that, it's just been hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, countries completely wrecked, and their populations not v. happy about it and the extreme situation leading to extremists. So my point is related to your sentence that you'd rather fight at the source than debate, but, you are the source itself, your intervention is the source, death of thousands of civilians due to your direct action is part of the source.

Death of a thousand civilians due to my direct actions? So if I kill a terrorist about to detonate an IED that will kill 5 soldiers and wound 4, you are saying that I really just killed a thousand civilians?

 

 

I'll answer you in three parts:

1. Death of a thousand civilians due to my direct actions?

Not you alone, but combined. Not saying you would, but chances are you may, unintentionally. 

 

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ > Go there, play with the stats. 

 

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians

 

Key Findings

There have been approximately 165,000 Iraqi civilians killed by direct violence since the US invasion.

 

The actual number of civilians killed by direct and indirect war violence is unknown but likely much higher – in the hundreds of thousands.

 

The fighting continues and life-threatening damage to Iraqi health care and other infrastructure has not been repaired: civilians are still dying in significant numbers.

 

 

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi

 

No one knows with certainty how many people have been killed and wounded in Iraq since the 2003 United States invasion. However, we know that approximately 165,000 civilians have died from direct war related violence caused by the US, its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces from the time of the invasion through April 2015. The violent deaths of Iraqi civilians have occurred through aerial bombing, shelling, gunshots, suicide attacks, and fires started by bombing.

 

Because not all war-related deaths have been recorded accurately by the Iraqi government and the US-led coalition, the 165,000 figure for civilians killed from 2003 to 2015 is lower than the actual figure.  

 

It is unknown how many Iraqi civilians have been wounded in the war, though one report states that as many civilians have been wounded as killed.

 

At least twice as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an indirect result of the war, due to damage to the systems that provide food, health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated.  

----

 

2. What are you doing there? Invading? you're there forcefully, nobody asked you to go there, you're not wanted there, nor you're welcome there. Reverse the roles and imagine, some coutnry comes, invades you from 10k km away, imposes their brand of governance, and tells you to do what it says or get shot. What would you do? 'Yessir' ? No, I dont think anyone with an iota of self dignity would let any foreigner come to there land and tell them what do. 

 

And that's just Iraq. 

 

3. Who said the only shooting you'd be doing is killing terrorists setting up IEDs? Dont think they let you pick and choose and gone are the days you're going to be fighting a standing professional army? You'd go occupy some place and so probably fight in population centers, thats the battleground of your choosing, no one else's. You're there 10,000 km away from your home. 

 

No disrespect intended in anyway, I can only respect true warriors who want to fight for the cause they believe in. But, do research on the whole 'cause' because we're still looking for nukes in Iraq and no matter the amount of respect, hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, that's the brutal truth, and wehter you want to be the enabler or instrument, that's up to you offcourse. 

 

Now, this is just my opinion, maybe right, maybe wrong, but the number of dead civilians due to invasion are FACTs. I just think countries should mind their own business. 

 

Politicians in United States today are ASHAMED to be associated with Iraq war. It's a political liability. Your own leadership. Everyone outside select few know it's been big disaster, an utter failure. So many BRAVE lives lost, So much hard earned tax money wasted, for the war that is a source of shame now for the very people who started it. 

 

Now, regarding Madrassahs in Afghanistan. 

 

You know there should be a rule, Politicians should enroll their kin first for the war they vote on before sending the kids of others. Then, see how many wars are started. 

Having a father and many relatives who immigrated to the US I would obviously rather not see the US keep out fellow humans.

 

What I find most alarming is how many seem to be bowing to fear and allowing it to influence their actions. The whole point of terrorism is to create and use fear to help further an agenda and we (the whole world not just the US) allow that to dictate our actions even when those actions are counter to what we know to be right. Fear blinds us and limiting immigration is just another means for us to turn a deaf ear to the issues while only adding to the animosity.

 

I'm not about to let fear and the actions of a select few dictate my actions. I will not surrender to them.

 

My two cents...

No one said we were kicking out legal immigranys, as long as your family and the people you know were legal, then welcome to America. If not, then leave and don't come back, not being rude, just truthful

As far as immigrants go, some of the best people I served with were immigrants that got their citizenship through the military. The pride those guys have for a country they weren't raise in is incredible.

 

Beyond that, I met one of these refugees at the mall play area while our kids were playing. I feel since it's the topic alot are discussing I should share the story. I have my opposiion towards bringing a mass amount of immigrants from war torn countries over. A mass amount. Do I believe we should help? Yes. It's in our human nature to care for one another. But it's our duty to protect one another. I believe to do that we need alot better background checks. If we can't 100% decide who you are, where you come from, etc, sorry. That's life. It ain't fair but you aren't coming over. And absolutely no single males. Sorry not sorry. If you are of military age and fit for service. Get your ass up and protect what is yours. I have no pity for men who can do something and run from it, allowing their own countrymen to die. Now to families. Those are who i believe we should bring over. Women, kids, and fathers. While i believe men should defend their country when that type of situation arises, a child doesnt deserve to be without a father. A wife doesnt deserve to lose a husband. If their background is clear, let them come. This immigrant i met was a Turkish born citizen. Moved to Syria and moved back to Turkey from the war. Turkey, in turn, classified him a refugee and the USA took him in. Beyond that, they took his wife and two kids in. HE had nothing but good things to say about the US. Beyond that, he was in Texas. A place stereotypes would say is very discriminatory towards anyone. (Not true.) He asked about how he could get Healthcare for his sons. I told him. Texas offers 100% free Healthcare for kids, even if you aren't covered. He asked about the culture. He had only been here for 2 months and was still learning. I told him the differences. If you see the bottom of someone's shoe, it isn't intentally trying to insult you. Things like that. After talking to him, I went from "no refugees" to the mentally I stated above. Some may not agree, and that's fine. That's the beautiful thing about America. We all have different opinions and can freely state it. Don't insult people for their opinions, even if you think they're 1000% asinine and outrageous. Admire their right to do it.

 

And Shah, as a service member who has lost some brothers in that war. As a service member who lost some brothers from the scars they bring home. I just ask that you not try to paint us as war mongering barbarians attacking a defenceless country. I don't want to dwell on this too much because I'm hoping I got the message wrong, but it hit me in an uncomfortable spot.

 

As for the Muslim issue..... It is all Muslims hes trying to get rid of. He's doing it to "get rid of the terrorists", but he wants to deport them and then refuse to take any from that entire region of the world. Personally I have no issue with a stricter immigration process for people coming from a region of conflict, but deporting people for their race is 100% racist.

 As for the Muslim issue... It is NOT all Muslims he's trying to get rid of... http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-election-2016/ "His spokeswoman Hope Hicks first told CNN late last month that Trump supported banning Muslims from terror states, not all Muslims, as he had said in December. Those comments came after Trump suggested he would allow a Scottish Muslim to enter the US under his latest proposal." (direct quote from the article) So I'm not gonna entertain the rest of that paragraph, especially the racist part.

 

 

 

You can say that its "not our problem", but the arm of the United States Government is long. They have already reached in and gotten involved in this whole mess. That makes it our problem. If we want to adopt the "not our problem" policy (which I don't agree with but thats because I'm one of those "bleeding heart" types who believes that if you have the power to make someone else's life better, then you have the responsibility to do so. You know, great power, great responsibility), then we have to get our hands out of whats going on over there, which will never happen because oil, and destabilizing governments that could threaten Israel because apparently the "not our problem" argument only applies to Muslims.

The "not our problem" argument doesn't only apply to America OR only Muslims... In fact, it doesn't apply at all. You act like America is only the bad guy in every conflict and no matter what happens in the East it is 100% America's fault no question, no discussion. America did not make people have radical ideas that made them create a separate state of insanity. And if you think it is America's fault then do you think that every radical idea ever is because of America? Because based on what you said, ISIS is killing people because of OUR involvement which is just as insane as ISIS in the first place. And if you are a "bleeding heart" type that supports great power, great responsibility then why don't we pressure England, China, Japan, or India to take in these refugees and fight ISIS and pretty much all of the middle east at the same time? Lastly, not only America has gotten into this mess, but so has The United States, France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands even. All have vowed more action on the Islamic States, so do you accuse them of doing this to Syria and other once great but now in shambles countries? Didn't really think so...

 

 

 

Okay so first, the problem isn't the illegals. The problem is that we have greedy asshats running corporations taking advantage of the fact that they can pay those illegals less money illegally to do the same jobs they could hire someone to do legally. They are taking advantage of the situation and thereby making the problem worse. If businesses weren't illegally "hiring" these people, there wouldn't be a problem.

Okay, now this. Let me give you some food for thought real quick, do you think it would be possible for these so called "greedy asshats" to take advantage if there weren't illegals in the first place? No. That's like saying "well it's the leaders fault for punishing these people for crime" but what if there was no crime in this theoretical world? Then there would be no harsh punishments. Just like how if there were no illegals, none would be "taken advantage" of. So that's that.

 

 

 

America has chosen to be the "world peacekeeper" (funny title considering we pick a lot of fights that didn't need to happen). They have chosen to do that because it benefits us in one way or another to be in those wars. We can put our poker face on and pretend that we are doing it for the benefit of some people in that country on the other side of the planet but that's not why we are there. If we are going to stir shit up and ruin peoples lives for our own benefit, then we should take responsibility for the consequences. Not all of them come to the United States anyway, plenty go to the other countries you listed, more so than come to the US actually I believe.

For your last part, saying more so go to other countries than the USA here's a quote from The Wall Street Journal,"Most refugees are referred to the U.S. by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees." So that point is now invalid. Secondly, don't even try to say that we stir shit up for our own benefit. Don't you think the world would be a lot more peaceful if we didn't get The World Trade Centers bombed? Because I do. If that didn't happen war would've been delayed (Obviously it would've happened sooner or later, this was just the straw that broke the camel's back) and if it was delayed, who knows how different things would've been. Also, do you honestly think that we are benefiting from sending our soldiers into these countries and spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on military purchase, upgrade and military upkeep? And you say we do this for our benefit, The reason we fought in the Vietnam war was to prevent the spread of communism. There were no foreign policy gains, there were no military gains, there were no social gains. The only gain was to a small group of industrialist who benefited from the military industrial complex. It was a loss in all respects for America, so we are the world's peacekeepers. Yes we benefit from some wars, but that's because we CHOOSE our wars. We don't just say "Oh hey, Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil, lets completely destroy their government and take them over to monopolize the world's oil industry."

 

 

 

This is spot on how I feel about political correctness, safe zones, and liberal garbage that Democrats fabricate in attempt to guilt trip people into believing it. Have you ever considered going into local politics? You tell the truth as is and are not afraid to risk offending someone if they need to be reminded that is not how America works.   If you stuck to those campaign promises, you would have my vote.

 My family always tell me that I would be a good politician but right now I want to be a Marine and do the fighting at the source rather than at the debates. And plus, I've only said what everyone else thinks but can't put into words. I might try politics though.

 

Ever wondered that you could be...the source?

 

And lastly... huh? I don't get what you mean.

 

 

 

So you won't even consider an argument because his spokeperson (who is paid to cover his ass when he says stupid shit) says that he now supports something different than THE WORDS THAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH. Cool bro, tell me more about how hes a straight talker and says what he means. Tell me more about how honest he is. Tell me more about how he isn't racist.

 

 

Oh other countries aren't helping people? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911 Tell me more about your informed opinion on this issue. The U.S. hasn't helped create the radical islamist groups? "The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”" http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881 

 

 

You're right, if there weren't illegals they wouldn't take advantage by hiring them. They would just do what so many other corporations have done and relocate their workforce to Asia so they can pay them next to nothing. Taking away one thing that they are taking advantage of doesn't fix the problem because as long as they can take advantage to line their pockets, they will. Corporations are the biggest reason for the current state of our economy.

 

 

You fail to see my point. The country as a whole does not benefit. However those in power and their friends benefit immensely. We are securing oil interests in the middle east, we created a war so that Halliburton and other military contractors could make millions upon millions of dollars on the conflict. Would the world be better off with the world trade centers not being attacked? Of course it would. The world would also be better off if we hadn't funded these very terrorist groups in the first place in an effort to fight against Russia during the cold war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden

 

 

 

Case rested. You are free to disagree, it is, at least for the moment unless Trump gets elected, a "free" country. You can choose to believe that those points are not important to you, and if that is the case then so be it, vote in the interest of what IS important to you. Please do not try to argue against the reality of the situation.

 

 

So you won't even consider an argument because his spokeperson (who is paid to cover his ass when he says stupid shit) says that he now supports something different than THE WORDS THAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH. Cool bro, tell me more about how hes a straight talker and says what he means. Tell me more about how honest he is. Tell me more about how he isn't racist.

No I won't consider it because people opinions change, weird how stuff can happen like that, isn't it? And you can't say what is, and isn't reality. Also, I'd really love to hear where I said that other countries were 100% not helping AT ALL, if you can't find where I said that then please don't try to use it as an argument. And I don't really care if corporations outsource their warehouses and everything, if anything they are giving jobs to an impoverished people.

 

And as ccbal said, Islam isn't a race so how about YOU give ME info on how he is positively without a doubt racist, thinking white Americans are superior to anyone else to ever walk the face of the Earth, please and thanks. And oh god, not another Wikipedia conspiracy theory about Bin Laden having secret training by the CIA. But honestly, do you genuinely think that the USA who the only one who funded them or any other group ever? And they weren't necessarily a terrorist group, they were mujahideen freedom fighters, doing Jihadist work which now has a nasty connotation.

 

And you fail to see my point on the whole topic, all I'm trying to say is that America isn't the only one to blame when everything goes wrong, and we shouldn't have to be a "breeding ground" for illegals and we shouldn't get all these refugees when there are over 75 other well off countries other than America. Am I saying we are perfect and everybody else is wrong? No. America isn't perfect no person, country, idea, or religion is, nobody is completely wrong either. I just wish America wouldn't get so much shit in the news and just from other countries in general when we are seriously trying, not as hard as we could mind you, but we are trying with what resources (candidates and other politicians) we have.

 

that's all I'm going to say because I'm tired, have school tomorrow, and need my sleep. 

If he wants to change his mind he can come out and change his mind and I have no issue. However, he didn't. His spoke person spun a story to cover his ass because thats what they are paid to do. Those corporations are giving away "our jobs". How do you suddenly not care?

 

 

Middle Eastern is a race. He wants to deport middle eastern people because of where they are from (the middle east). Would you like to know more? 

If you want to say hes doing it based on religion then he discriminating based on religion which is against our constitution, you know, that document you would be swearing to uphold and protect if you went into the armed services?

 

So you read the link not the article, cool. That's a good way to now that you don't actually care to discuss, you are just going to dispute because you believe the load of shit hes trying to sell. My point wasn't anything to do with any training that may or may not have happened. My point was that the United States gave them weapons (stingers and other weapons). That is an indisputable fact. Those same stingers have been used against us. Indisputable fact.

 

I haven't blamed the United States for everything, but we are largely to blame for the shit that goes down over there. Israel does plenty as well. Absolving ourselves of all blame is what  you are trying to do just because we aren't entirely to blame, which is not fair to the lives ruined by the greedy jackasses in power.

 

 

As for the United states doing more than all those other countries http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/welcome-syrian-refugees-countries/ Please show me where I'm wrong, oh wait don't bother. No point in posting here, you've made your mind up and aren't interested in the facts. 

 

As for the bad rap that the U.S. gets with the rest of the world, its because of what our government does and the uneducated views of many of our citizens who still believe the "America is the greatest country in the world" plug. Its the refusal to consider other points of view and the consequences of our actions.

Though I understand what you're both saying, my question to you Chap is how do you expect Hillary - who has made millions on millions off the political system staying as is - will try to beckon any change? Her and Bill are getting off free and happy while they line their pockets with a sold-off America to any company or organization that wants to pay their foundation millions on millions of dollars.

 

If you're avidly against Trump because you believe he's a liar, then please do not vote for one who has pathological lying syndrome (my own created phrase ) much worse than he possibly ever would.

As far as immigrants go, some of the best people I served with were immigrants that got their citizenship through the military. The pride those guys have for a country they weren't raise in is incredible.

Beyond that, I met one of these refugees at the mall play area while our kids were playing. I feel since it's the topic alot are discussing I should share the story. I have my opposiion towards bringing a mass amount of immigrants from war torn countries over. A mass amount. Do I believe we should help? Yes. It's in our human nature to care for one another. But it's our duty to protect one another. I believe to do that we need alot better background checks. If we can't 100% decide who you are, where you come from, etc, sorry. That's life. It ain't fair but you aren't coming over. And absolutely no single males. Sorry not sorry. If you are of military age and fit for service. Get your ass up and protect what is yours. I have no pity for men who can do something and run from it, allowing their own countrymen to die. Now to families. Those are who i believe we should bring over. Women, kids, and fathers. While i believe men should defend their country when that type of situation arises, a child doesnt deserve to be without a father. A wife doesnt deserve to lose a husband. If their background is clear, let them come. This immigrant i met was a Turkish born citizen. Moved to Syria and moved back to Turkey from the war. Turkey, in turn, classified him a refugee and the USA took him in. Beyond that, they took his wife and two kids in. HE had nothing but good things to say about the US. Beyond that, he was in Texas. A place stereotypes would say is very discriminatory towards anyone. (Not true.) He asked about how he could get Healthcare for his sons. I told him. Texas offers 100% free Healthcare for kids, even if you aren't covered. He asked about the culture. He had only been here for 2 months and was still learning. I told him the differences. If you see the bottom of someone's shoe, it isn't intentally trying to insult you. Things like that. After talking to him, I went from "no refugees" to the mentally I stated above. Some may not agree, and that's fine. That's the beautiful thing about America. We all have different opinions and can freely state it. Don't insult people for their opinions, even if you think they're 1000% asinine and outrageous. Admire their right to do it.

And Shah, as a service member who has lost some brothers in that war. As a service member who lost some brothers from the scars they bring home. I just ask that you not try to paint us as war mongering barbarians attacking a defenceless country. I don't want to dwell on this too much because I'm hoping I got the message wrong, but it hit me in an uncomfortable spot.

I will never try to disrespect soldiers on the Frontline. Never, my apologies if it came that way, my frustration is with the politicians and policymakers and what has become the outcome of war is a total and utter quagmire. You are here to present your views but there is no one here to empathize for people who have collectivly suffered, simply, alot more than anyone of us here. I do not think any one of us can even imagine that scale of suffering as none of us have really experienced the loss of entire families, neighborhoods, cities and country. They are the ones with no voice here, they are the other victims of war besides the soldiers who put everything on the line.  You can, never, ever fault soldiers on the front for the mess being cooked by politicians. 

 

My grandfather, father, both have been service members, my grandfather lost, literally everything in the war, including most of his family, who would have been my uncles, people I never saw, met or know but all I know were they too were 'family', lost somewhere, no where to be found, with no records and no one to tell their story or speak for them. This was during WW2 on the Burmese front vs Empire of Japan. Perhaps, this is why I tend to be very critical of any war and raise alternate view points that someone else will not tell you and I hope, you dont take offense from it, but understand that there is another narrative too and that in the end, you and these silent others have, made the ultimate sacrifices and there are people who have misused these sacrifices, namely, some of the politicians, in Iraq and United States. People are pawn to not all, but many of them. 

 

Has anyone been held accountable for the mess?  

 

So you won't even consider an argument because his spokeperson (who is paid to cover his ass when he says stupid shit) says that he now supports something different than THE WORDS THAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH. Cool bro, tell me more about how hes a straight talker and says what he means. Tell me more about how honest he is. Tell me more about how he isn't racist.

No I won't consider it because people opinions change, weird how stuff can happen like that, isn't it? And you can't say what is, and isn't reality. Also, I'd really love to hear where I said that other countries were 100% not helping AT ALL, if you can't find where I said that then please don't try to use it as an argument. And I don't really care if corporations outsource their warehouses and everything, if anything they are giving jobs to an impoverished people.

 

And as ccbal said, Islam isn't a race so how about YOU give ME info on how he is positively without a doubt racist, thinking white Americans are superior to anyone else to ever walk the face of the Earth, please and thanks. And oh god, not another Wikipedia conspiracy theory about Bin Laden having secret training by the CIA. But honestly, do you genuinely think that the USA who the only one who funded them or any other group ever? And they weren't necessarily a terrorist group, they were mujahideen freedom fighters, doing Jihadist work which now has a nasty connotation.

 

And you fail to see my point on the whole topic, all I'm trying to say is that America isn't the only one to blame when everything goes wrong, and we shouldn't have to be a "breeding ground" for illegals and we shouldn't get all these refugees when there are over 75 other well off countries other than America. Am I saying we are perfect and everybody else is wrong? No. America isn't perfect no person, country, idea, or religion is, nobody is completely wrong either. I just wish America wouldn't get so much shit in the news and just from other countries in general when we are seriously trying, not as hard as we could mind you, but we are trying with what resources (candidates and other politicians) we have.

 

that's all I'm going to say because I'm tired, have school tomorrow, and need my sleep. 

Do you want non wikipedia links? It's not a conspiracy theory that CIA setup the extremists to finger Soviet Russia. Alot of these are established facts of history. We're they alone? Off course not, but when you're the biggest alpha male in the house, you call the shots bro and everyone else fall in line and follow. 

Though I understand what you're both saying, my question to you Chap is how do you expect Hillary - who has made millions on millions off the political system staying as is - will try to beckon any change? Her and Bill are getting off free and happy while they line their pockets with a sold-off America to any company or organization that wants to pay their foundation millions on millions of dollars.

 

If you're avidly against Trump because you believe he's a liar, then please do not vote for one who has pathological lying syndrome (my own created phrase ) much worse than he possibly ever would.

 

I detest Hillary on so many levels. But I'm less concerned for my well being and the well being of those around me with her in office than I would be with Trump. I'd rather not vote for either but the Political system in our country has been rigged into a 2 party system, and the options they've given us are both awful. I'd rather go with the career politician who is corrupt than go with someone who I have legit concern will go full internment camps on the people he doesn't like (Muslims, Mexicans). 

 

In my opinion its like asking me to shoot myself in the leg, or shoot myself in the chest. Either way, I could end up just fine with no real permanent damage, but one has a far higher chance of killing me or severely damaging me than the other. Either way its not going to be fun.

 

 

 

 

Though I understand what you're both saying, my question to you Chap is how do you expect Hillary - who has made millions on millions off the political system staying as is - will try to beckon any change? Her and Bill are getting off free and happy while they line their pockets with a sold-off America to any company or organization that wants to pay their foundation millions on millions of dollars.

 

If you're avidly against Trump because you believe he's a liar, then please do not vote for one who has pathological lying syndrome (my own created phrase ) much worse than he possibly ever would.

 

I detest Hillary on so many levels. But I'm less concerned for my well being and the well being of those around me with her in office than I would be with Trump. I'd rather not vote for either but the Political system in our country has been rigged into a 2 party system, and the options they've given us are both awful. I'd rather go with the career politician who is corrupt than go with someone who I have legit concern will go full internment camps on the people he doesn't like (Muslims, Mexicans). 

 

In my opinion its like asking me to shoot myself in the leg, or shoot myself in the chest. Either way, I could end up just fine with no real permanent damage, but one has a far higher chance of killing me or severely damaging me than the other. Either way its not going to be fun.

 

how did it come out that he hates Mexicans and Muslims? he said deport illegal immigrants not just Mexicans. I have some Mexicans friends that want trump to win. I have no clue how he comes off as racist to some. when BLM isn't getting called racist for targeting white people (mostly cops)

Didn't he make several speeches specifically targeting Muslim groups? I remember he said something about Muslims to the effect that they were celebrating when 911 happened. That's pretty bigoted imo, as well as many of his other speeches. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5BtQgTGOI4 i'm not saying all Muslims are bad but this guy is Muslim and well yeah watch the video for yourself

 

My point was that the United

States gave them weapons (stingers and other weapons). That is an
indisputable fact. Those same stingers have been used against us.
Indisputable fact.

As far as I am aware, not a single Stinger missile sent by the CIA in Operation Cyclone was used in an attack against Western forces. Before I explain why, I want to mention some historical events. Not many people are aware how Operation Cyclone was carried out, and a lot of misconceptions exist, so I would like to shed some light on this area. If you don't feel like reading this part just skip the next paragraph.

 

The US did offer a buyback program for unused Stingers but most of what was leftover likely ended up on the international black market, where they would fetch higher prices than what the US was offering. The exact number is subjective but it is commonly believed the CIA sent at least 500, or 1,500-2,000 Stinger Missiles. These Stingers consisted of the 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO reporting name SA-7 Grail) and the Blowpipe, and for some unknown reason these plans didn't work out to well. My best guess is since the first weapon originated in the USSR acquiring an adequate stock would be difficult. However these could have been bought from China, sent to Pakistan, and then smuggled into Afghanistan. Which was the route most small arms took. While the second weapon originated in the UK, there are claims the guerillas didn't like this specific weapon. The Blowpipe is not a fire and forget weapon (doesn't lock on to heat signature), it is a manually operated weapon. The operator must guide the missile to the target while exposing himself to return fire. And the required training to accurately use such a weapon would have been rather impossible to provide. This leads us to the American FIM-92 being sent. So back to the numbers, the conflicting accounts as to how many Stingers were sent is probably due to 3 different types being planned. Their are photos of the SA-7 in guerilla hands, which yes the CIA did give some of these to guerillas. A couple Blowpipes were probably sent. While the rest were the FIM-92s.

 

As for the CIA Stingers given to Afghan guerillas, the US Government claims it recovered all but 600 of them. 100-200 were rumored to be stockpiled in Afghanistan, some of which were found once the US invaded. While the rest ended up on the black market and in several other war torn countries. So that gives us approximately 400-500 unaccounted for Stingers. What happened to them? Well their battery packs ran out. The FIM-92 battery only lasts 4-5 years (a Pentagon report does exist saying they could theoretically last up to 10 years), after that the weapon system is useless. It could still have a live missile, but their is no way to fire it, nor recharge its battery. The SA-7 is rumored to also have a 4-5 year battery life. In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, some SA-7 battery packs have been replaced with improvised batteries. Reports state these batteries may have gotten the missile to fire, but the tracking was unpredictable and erratic. It is not known if any of these modded SA-7s have even hit a target. One Syrian apparently found a way to use a laptop battery and claims he got a SA-7 to properly work, but the claim is difficult to verify. Even if it is true, that means only one Stinger has been successfully re purposed. A Stinger which likely did not originate from Operation Cyclone, it is probably Russian stock, sold to the Syrian Army, and then captured by rebels.

 

The stinger threat has been overblown because it instills so much fear, and makes for a terrifying story. Even the actual effective use of Stingers in the Soviet Afghan War is widely debated. The term 'Stinger Effect' was coined because there is this notion that the Stingers made the Soviets leave Afghanistan and subsequently broke up the USSR. That is far from the truth as the Soviets planned to pull out of Afghanistan at least a year prior to the first CIA Stinger being used. The US claimed a high shoot down rate (which is difficult to actually verify because accounts were mostly given by guerillas), while the Soviets stated their losses were smaller. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. I suspect aircraft/helicopter loses declined later in the war as pilots adjusted their tactics and were given better equipment.

 

The deadliest weapon the CIA gave to the guerillas, isn't sophisticated technology, but the cheap AK47s bought from China. Those weapons will be in use for decades to come. Easy to maintain, operate, and ammunition is readily available.

 

 

Didn't
he make several speeches specifically targeting Muslim groups? I
remember he said something about Muslims to the effect that they were
celebrating when 911 happened. That's pretty bigoted imo, as well as
many of his other speeches.

There were multiple videos shot by journalists and I remember seeing one of them being aired on September 11, 2001. Some of the videos were shot in East Jerusalem or the West Bank (Gaza Strip). Some footage exists on Youtube, which is mostly people dancing in the streets cheering. If I am remembering correctly, this was the video that aired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKT-9OpneoY

 

Now there is some debate if this video is actually factual and relevant to 9/11. Claims exist that it was actually a much earlier celebration in regards to the 1993 WTC Bombing (Although it is hard to tell by the video quality given. Its a low quality video that is also compressed by YouTube, but to me the footage quality does appear to be circa late 90s-early 2000s. Footage in 1993 of the WTC has a lot of blur and has a definitive 90s look to it), some also argue the celebration was staged due to a 'supposed' interview with one of the people that was in the video. So unfortunately there is no real clear answer to whether or not the video of Muslims dancing is true. Even contacting the broadcast company that aired/taped it (might have been CNN/Reuters) would probably not offer much factual evidence. After all, what broadcast company would be quick to admit something they aired isn't 100% accurate, or being willing to help investigate an accidental mistake?

I am outsider.. I think trump will be better bet if,if he is not a lier and somehow he is able to achieve even half of what he said..

There is trend going on everywhere to select right wing government..

It`s embarrassing to be american right now. the 2 major canidates were chosen by roughly 15% of the population, in a fairly corrupt primary system that is the definition of vote disfranchisement. 

 

The issues i care about aren't acknowledged by the canidates (well maybe jill a bit),

 

sutdent loan debt (being the second largest debt in the country, used to be housing then cars, then students, but we know what happened with houses) needless to say cars are next.. and i'm hoping for student loans (8% on an education while homes are  even lower than that). 

 

underemployment. I have a job, but there is no way to live off of it, nor make progress on student loans, my mom is in the same boat as me as she helped with my schooling. This would include decreasing corporate subsides which would hopefully make it so less people would need help to survive. 

 

decriminalization of drugs, a rape sentence is lighter than a possession sentence. 

 

 

clinton i hate, she seems crazy, the campaign slogan of "stronger together" should honestly be "join or die"... the law suit against the dnc.. somehow those lawyers have dropped dead, bernie feels forced to support her as does Michelle and with what bill did to the global economy with free trade i'd not want another Clinton able to influence the economy. oh and clinton is no where near the left, i've seen republican candidates more left leaning. 

 

trump doesnt understand the term its impossible or illegal, a majority of what he said can't and will never happen. and i enjoy having my civil rights finally. the campaign slogan of "make america great again" isn't fitting, the greatest america was when we had FDR for 4 terms, none of his polices are anything near FDR. it should be "things i wanna say" cause they have no way to be implemented. oh and he is a failed businessmen who  has inherited wealth and has had more lawsuits than the number of crime shows on TV in the US. 

 

going jill to influence the next election cycle more than anything else, my vote is in a heavy red state so between the 2 parties it ain't changing. voting 3rd gives a chance for a crazy new process in 2020, jill and gary both have larger support than any 3rd party candidate before and they still aren't allowed to join the presidential debates. if gary and/or jill gets 5% of popular vote the funding for the party greatly changes and they will have to be on the presidential debate stage.(in 2020, a touch after the fact) 

 

I can't stop trump from winning with the state I'm in but I'm gonna change the process to make more outcomes if trump was to run again.

What are you doing there? Invading? you're there forcefully, nobody asked you to go there, you're not wanted there, nor you're welcome there. Reverse the roles and imagine, some coutnry comes, invades you from 10k km away, imposes their brand of governance, and tells you to do what it says or get shot. What would you do? 'Yessir' ? No, I dont think anyone with an iota of self dignity would let any foreigner come to there land and tell them what do.

 

And that's just Iraq.

I am not a member of the United States Military but I come from a military family. My best friend joined the United States Marine Corps after we graduated from high school. He served two tours in Iraq totaling more than 12 months of service. The stories he brought home with him paint quite a different picture than the one you are painting here, Shah.

 

I have no doubt that there are some Iraqi citizens who despise America and despised that we were ever there, but I think that you would be quite surprised to hear stories about how many Iraqi citizens do not agree with you here. I have heard the stories and seen videos of what it was like on the ground in Fallujah. Large groups of Iraqi citizens cheering as American soldiers defended them, cared for them, and played with their children. Of course you won't see any of that anywhere in the media.

 

There has no doubt been tens or hundreds of thousands of lives tragically lost in warfare over there. No one disputes that. War is hell. But can you honestly say that  that war wouldn't have happened at some point anyway?

 

 

 

 

So you won't even consider an argument because his spokeperson (who is paid to cover his ass when he says stupid shit) says that he now supports something different than THE WORDS THAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH. Cool bro, tell me more about how hes a straight talker and says what he means. Tell me more about how honest he is. Tell me more about how he isn't racist.

You realize that your argument here is among the many reasons why you shouldn't vote for Clinton, right?

 

 

 

I detest Hillary on so many levels. But I'm less concerned for my well being and the well being of those around me with her in office than I would be with Trump. I'd rather not vote for either but the Political system in our country has been rigged into a 2 party system, and the options they've given us are both awful. I'd rather go with the career politician who is corrupt than go with someone who I have legit concern will go full internment camps on the people he doesn't like (Muslims, Mexicans).

With the trail of blood behind Hillary Clinton, I don't think anyone can legitimately claim that they are safer with her in office.

I'd vote for Trump, so I can troll all of his supporters from Nov 2018 to Nov 2020. 

 

2y? Why 2y? Or is this about a Senate/Congress becomming +60% democrat?

 

 

 

As for the Muslim issue..... It is all Muslims hes trying to get rid of. He's doing it to "get rid of the terrorists", but he wants to deport them and then refuse to take any from that entire region of the world. Personally I have no issue with a stricter immigration process for people coming from a region of conflict, but deporting people for their race is 100% racist.

 As for the Muslim issue... It is NOT all Muslims he's trying to get rid of... http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-election-2016/ "His spokeswoman Hope Hicks first told CNN late last month that Trump supported banning Muslims from terror states, not all Muslims, as he had said in December. Those comments came after Trump suggested he would allow a Scottish Muslim to enter the US under his latest proposal." (direct quote from the article) So I'm not gonna entertain the rest of that paragraph, especially the racist part.

 

 

Well thats the deal, his spokeperson's and "team" are there just to "explain" every one-liner he drops into a "he didn't mean it that extreme". basically his Presidentional run will be likewise, lukewarm at best. You should be more concerned about the backlash when the whipped idiots find out he can't actually deliver on all the gold he promised...

 

 

My point was that the United

States gave them weapons (stingers and other weapons). That is an

indisputable fact. Those same stingers have been used against us.

Indisputable fact.

As far as I am aware, not a single Stinger missile sent by the CIA in Operation Cyclone was used in an attack against Western forces. Before I explain why, I want to mention some historical events. Not many people are aware how Operation Cyclone was carried out, and a lot of misconceptions exist, so I would like to shed some light on this area. If you don't feel like reading this part just skip the next paragraph.

 

The US did offer a buyback program for unused Stingers but most of what was leftover likely ended up on the international black market, where they would fetch higher prices than what the US was offering. The exact number is subjective but it is commonly believed the CIA sent at least 500, or 1,500-2,000 Stinger Missiles. These Stingers consisted of the 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO reporting name SA-7 Grail) and the Blowpipe, and for some unknown reason these plans didn't work out to well. My best guess is since the first weapon originated in the USSR acquiring an adequate stock would be difficult. However these could have been bought from China, sent to Pakistan, and then smuggled into Afghanistan. Which was the route most small arms took. While the second weapon originated in the UK, there are claims the guerillas didn't like this specific weapon. The Blowpipe is not a fire and forget weapon (doesn't lock on to heat signature), it is a manually operated weapon. The operator must guide the missile to the target while exposing himself to return fire. And the required training to accurately use such a weapon would have been rather impossible to provide. This leads us to the American FIM-92 being sent. So back to the numbers, the conflicting accounts as to how many Stingers were sent is probably due to 3 different types being planned. Their are photos of the SA-7 in guerilla hands, which yes the CIA did give some of these to guerillas. A couple Blowpipes were probably sent. While the rest were the FIM-92s.

 

As for the CIA Stingers given to Afghan guerillas, the US Government claims it recovered all but 600 of them. 100-200 were rumored to be stockpiled in Afghanistan, some of which were found once the US invaded. While the rest ended up on the black market and in several other war torn countries. So that gives us approximately 400-500 unaccounted for Stingers. What happened to them? Well their battery packs ran out. The FIM-92 battery only lasts 4-5 years (a Pentagon report does exist saying they could theoretically last up to 10 years), after that the weapon system is useless. It could still have a live missile, but their is no way to fire it, nor recharge its battery. The SA-7 is rumored to also have a 4-5 year battery life. In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, some SA-7 battery packs have been replaced with improvised batteries. Reports state these batteries may have gotten the missile to fire, but the tracking was unpredictable and erratic. It is not known if any of these modded SA-7s have even hit a target. One Syrian apparently found a way to use a laptop battery and claims he got a SA-7 to properly work, but the claim is difficult to verify. Even if it is true, that means only one Stinger has been successfully re purposed. A Stinger which likely did not originate from Operation Cyclone, it is probably Russian stock, sold to the Syrian Army, and then captured by rebels.

 

The stinger threat has been overblown because it instills so much fear, and makes for a terrifying story. Even the actual effective use of Stingers in the Soviet Afghan War is widely debated. The term 'Stinger Effect' was coined because there is this notion that the Stingers made the Soviets leave Afghanistan and subsequently broke up the USSR. That is far from the truth as the Soviets planned to pull out of Afghanistan at least a year prior to the first CIA Stinger being used. The US claimed a high shoot down rate (which is difficult to actually verify because accounts were mostly given by guerillas), while the Soviets stated their losses were smaller. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. I suspect aircraft/helicopter loses declined later in the war as pilots adjusted their tactics and were given better equipment.

 

The deadliest weapon the CIA gave to the guerillas, isn't sophisticated technology, but the cheap AK47s bought from China. Those weapons will be in use for decades to come. Easy to maintain, operate, and ammunition is readily available.

 

 

Didn't

he make several speeches specifically targeting Muslim groups? I

remember he said something about Muslims to the effect that they were

celebrating when 911 happened. That's pretty bigoted imo, as well as

many of his other speeches.

There were multiple videos shot by journalists and I remember seeing one of them being aired on September 11, 2001. Some of the videos were shot in East Jerusalem or the West Bank (Gaza Strip). Some footage exists on Youtube, which is mostly people dancing in the streets cheering. If I am remembering correctly, this was the video that aired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKT-9OpneoY

 

Now there is some debate if this video is actually factual and relevant to 9/11. Claims exist that it was actually a much earlier celebration in regards to the 1993 WTC Bombing (Although it is hard to tell by the video quality given. Its a low quality video that is also compressed by YouTube, but to me the footage quality does appear to be circa late 90s-early 2000s. Footage in 1993 of the WTC has a lot of blur and has a definitive 90s look to it), some also argue the celebration was staged due to a 'supposed' interview with one of the people that was in the video. So unfortunately there is no real clear answer to whether or not the video of Muslims dancing is true. Even contacting the broadcast company that aired/taped it (might have been CNN/Reuters) would probably not offer much factual evidence. After all, what broadcast company would be quick to admit something they aired isn't 100% accurate, or being willing to help investigate an accidental mistake?

 

 

 

The video has the Fox emblem in the bottom left. Just saying.

 

 

 

Warrior I know Clinton is a despicable human being and in no way do I want her in office either. But I'm not concerned AS concerned about world war 3 being started in the next 4 years with her as I am Trump. My best hope is that whoever gets elected gets impeached within the first year.