Does Hillary Clinton really intend to start WWIII w/ Russia? (from Dem-leaning Independent now undecided) (John Kerry, Putin)

[cinmarkham]

I’m going to get right to it here, apologize for being lengthy with my delurking but I’ll be on a trip and can't respond for at least a week, so wanted to spell my dilemma out clearly to hear your thoughts and help convince me. I’m an Independent voter who leans Democratic, grew up in a Dem neighborhood and for most election season, I’ve been planning on voting for Hillary Clinton. Without going too much into details I’ve agreed with her domestic policy on health care and college funding, and find her more experienced than Trump—and I don’t want to dwell on this because due to recent events, this is not what will be deciding my vote. Nor will the media's stupid obsession with the candidates' dumb statements 10 or 20 years ago-- that has nothing to do with how they'd actually govern and few in the real world decide their votes that way.

Instead I’m posting this up to be persuaded by one side or another since I’m now genuinely undecided, with my vote and many others like me hinging on one question above all others. After the debate on Sunday, we will be voting exclusively on this one issue— whether Hillary is so hawkish that she’d be crazy enough to start a war with Russia over supporting “rebels” in Syria who are, it actually appears, Islamic State and al-Qaedah terrorists, whatever the euphemisms used for them.

Here is the dilemma for me and tons of other undecided voters, I’d like to believe Hillary isn’t inclined to do something so stupid as start a war with Russia since I support her on most other things, and part of me still says the very idea of her doing this is crazy. But after her statements in Sunday’s debate I’m not so sure, and this prospect is so scary and dangerous that it’s overwhelmed every single other issue and considerations. I wanted to hear input from both sides here to help me decide. And BTW, based on the large group I watched the debate with and our political leanings, mostly like mine, I’m not alone, so there are probably millions of undecideds out there who will cast their vote based on this one issue that towers over all others.

Let me explain why Hillary’s Syria and Russia stance will decide our vote, to the exclusion now of nearly everything else even if we agree with her on other things.

The media and the candidates’ campaigns generally don’t “get” what actually makes the decisions for us real Americans who work real jobs, have homes and often kids to take care of, are busy and aren’t really politically involved. We don’t care about all the political horse race stupidity and don’t pay attention to it. We don’t care about the fringe or side issues, or social issues in general much. We certainly don’t care about all the ridiculous obsessions on what the candidates said or did years ago. I’m a woman myself and I couldn’t care less what Trump said a decade ago— I’ve heard far worse said by people around my office water cooler, including from the mouths of fellow women.

No, what makes the voting decisions for us undecided voters is concrete policy, ie. 'How will this or that policy actually affect us?' We're voting for a government, not choirboys or girls. That and that alone is what we care about, concrete issues. This is why many of us have been drawn to Hillary due to her domestic policies, but of course there is a hierarchy in the issues that are highest priority. And here is the thing, even if we agree on every one of Hillary’s domestic priorities, none of these matter if Hillary blunders into World War III against Russia and gets us all into a nuclear conflict. Let’s put it this way— all of Hillary’s initiatives for HeadStart and college funding won’t mean much if Hillary’s recklessness and needless hawkishness causes my daughter to have to worry about radiation from mushroom clouds on the way to school in the morning.

Until about a month ago I wasn’t worried about this at all, I figured Hillary would have a level head on foreign policy issues. Then another Independent voter friend of mine, more conservative-leaning, got under my skin a bit, claiming that Hillary actually intended to start a war against Russia to prove just how tough she was. I still didn’t believe it, but then after some other news and especially the debate on Sunday, I’m genuinely worried that Hillary actually does want to start a massive world war against the Russians. As were most of us in the room where we watched it. And we’re really, really concerned that for whatever reason we can’t begin to understand, she truly does intend to antagonize Russia and get the US into a war against Putin, all for the purpose of defending “rebels” in Syria— who for all intents and purposes, are the same terrorists from Islamic State and Al-Qaedah who’ve been constantly attacking the United States.

It makes no sense to us why, but an honest question, how are we supposed to interpret what Hillary was saying about gaining leverage vs. Russia beyond the “confines” of diplomacy on Sunday? "Leverage" to force them to the negotiating table sounds like military operations, I can't see how else to interpret this. And now especially since Hillary’s said she intends to enforce a no-fly zone against Russia in Syria? Doesn’t that mean the United States military will have to 1. Invade Syria which AFAIK we have no legal authorization, thus nakedly breaking international law and committing war crimes, and then 2. Shoot down Russian military jets? Because that seems to be how the Russians interpreted it, they issued a warning to the US about this and are now warning all their people overseas to come home in preparation for war against the US! This is getting to be absolutely outrageous, there's no ideology clash like in the Cold War and there's absolutely no reason for US neoconservatives and other hawks to claim some sort inevitable conflict with Russia. It's just another country, far away, and the only reason for a conflict would be their stupid hawkishness, which Hillary may, or may not, be joining in with. We're simply not sure. But Russia certainly is taking the apparent US hawkishness on Syria seriously, and it's getting nasty. ex. this article:
[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/russia-us-more-dangerous-than-cold-war-german-foreign-minister-aleppo-a7352996.html]Russia tensions with US 'more dangerous' than during the Cold War | The Independent[/url]

Yeah, this sounds pretty scary. Whereas Donald Trump, much as we dislike him on everything else, seemed to have a cooler head on Syria Sunday night and just talked about going after Islamic State. Which is apparently what current US policy is supposed to be focused on.

We still have trouble believing Hilary actually means this so we have no idea what to believe. We’re not pro Russian by any means, we grew up during the Cold War, I myself studied international relations and don’t like what Russia is doing in east Ukraine, but this doesn’t mean they’re wrong everywhere. Taking out Islamic State and al-Qaedah in Aleppo seems like a great thing for Syria and even for the US, by clearing the country of terrorist fighters. So at least in Syria if not elsewhere, Russia is in the right. And it’s not like the US even has a case to complain about civilian suffering in Aleppo when it’s those very Islamic State and al-Qaedah extremists causing the suffering there, not to mention our own recent history in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and now Yemen!

That’s another reason we’re having trouble believing Hillary would call for something so stupid as a war against Russia to protect terrorists!

But if she really is calling for something this stupid, she’s likely going to lose this election, because even us independents and some Dems who support her in everything else will vote against her to stop a war against Russia for such nonsensical reasons. To give you a sense of how critical Hilary’s stand was, several of us including myself watching that debate on Sunday, were ready to cast our vote for Hillary the very next day since we have early voting in our state. And we’re in a critical swing state— one of us even got polled last week and responded we’d vote for Hillary-- so even some of the recent polls supposedly giving Hillary a lead are already outdated, we’re back on the fence until we know what Hillary intends on Russia and Syria. We simply don’t know, are we misinterpreting what Hillary was saying? Does she really want war with Russia?

So this is your chance, supporters of each candidate, to convince us, and this may well decide the election. All the other issues pale into insignificance in the face of the possibility of World War Three against Russia provoked by, what it seems like to us, Hillary’s need to show how tough she is to the world— if indeed this is what she intends. We honestly don’t know. Donald for all his other flaws clearly doesn’t want war with Russia, and even if we dislike him on everything else—and some in our group on Sunday night passionately dislike him— we’ll still hold our nose and vote for him if it turns out that Hillary really intends what it sounded like to us.

So feel free to make your cases both sides, and please don’t get sidetracked by any other issues because this is the only one that’s going to be making our decisions. If the apparent threat of Hillary's hawkishness has been overblown, then we’ll vote for Hillary because we support her on most other issues. But if the danger is genuine, then we cannot vote for her under any circumstances, and we’ll vote for Trump to prevent this much as we may loathe him otherwise. Both sides, and supporters of Johnson or Stein, please weigh in here. Even though I can't respond I assure you lots of us will be reading what you write and we’ll be making our decisions on that basis!

[zortation]

Nobody on this forum is going to read all that. Yes, she mentioned in the past that she wanted a war with Iran and she is one of the biggest hawks in US politics. Whatever transpires under her term, you can bet many innocent lives will be lost and many American servicemen and women will die for no reason. And someone will be profiting from it.

[justus978]

have a good trip!

[Ih2puo]

If you want war with Russia vote Hillary.

The track record of her and all her Republican backers is destabilizing middle East and African Nations.

Russia has drawn a line and that line is Syria and as I post the above mentioned people and Obama discuss what actions America should take in Syria.

What do you think they want?

[bobisinthehouse]

Yay, let WW3 start. Nobody cares what Russia says

[Fifty Seven]

I did not read all of your post but the globalists want a pipeline through Syria for Saudi Arabia and Assad won't allow it. In the Syrian civil war, the US is backing ISIS and Russia is backing Assad. This war has gone on for a long time and although the globalists love all of the refugees they can resettle in western lands, they also need this war to end so they can get their pipeline built. It's starting to look like the puppet masters in this war may need to go head to head in order to settle this once and for all. Hillary works for the globalists so if they say we need to pull the trigger and go directly against Russia then that is what she will do. The globalists are afraid that Trump will not listen to them so he must, and will, be stopped at any cost.

[theoldnorthstate]

It would wag the dog in the upcoming election wouldn't it?

[petch751]

Russia is ordering all of its officials to fly home any relatives living abroad amid heightened tensions over the prospect of global war, it has been claimed. Politicians and high-ranking figures are said to have received a warning from president Vladimir Putin to bring their loved-ones home to the 'Motherland', according to local media.

It comes after Putin cancelled a planned visit to France amid a furious row over Moscow's role in the Syrian conflict and just days after it emerged the Kremlin had moved nuclear-capable missiles nearer to the Polish border.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has also warned that the world is at a 'dangerous point' due to rising tensions between Russia and the US.

• Comes amid worsening relations between Russia and US over Syria crisis
• US has pulled plug on Syria talks and accused Russia of hacking attacks
• Russia has moved nuclear-capable missiles nearer to the Polish border

[petch751]

The move follows upon repeated Russian violations of the Joint Forces in Europe treaty, which forbids the nation from mobilizing certain military assets on Europe's Western front. In addition, the Pentagon noted prior that Russia is in violation of a treaty on Intermediate Nuclear-Range forces:

Russian violation of an arms control agreement poses a threat to U.S. and its allies’ security interests, leading the Joint Staff to conduct a military assessment of its threat, a senior defense official said here today. [...]

In the course of “closely” monitoring compliance of arms control treaties... it was determined that Russia was in violation of the INF treaty.

The “reset” button launched under the Clinton administration has further encouraged the Russian bear to show aggression. The Russians infamously annexed Crimea in early 2014, under her successor as Secretary of State, John Kerry.

Putin's Announcement to High-Ranking Officials to Bring in 'Loved Ones' is Nothing Short of Chilling

[kat in aiken]

So, all the news in the last few days about Russia ramping up its military in different places... reminds me of the hostages in Iran being held until the minute the election was over, and Carter lost to Reagan. At the time, there was a lot of talk about reagan manipulating the situation, and iran wanting reagan to be elected. Who knows what the reality was, just saying that there was talk about it then.

Is it possible that the sabre-rattling by russia right now is designed to affect the outcome of the election this time? Who are they hoping to help? On one side, there are people who say it would be dangerous to have trump in charge at a critical time like this, and, of course, there is the other side, who says it would be dangerous to have clinton in charge.

If it is true that russia is behind all the hacking, and was giving wikileaks all that stuff on the democrats, would it be likely that russia is trying to get trump elected? Or, is it just as asange says, he hates clinton, so will only release bad stuff on that side?

What does russia have to gain by having whichever one of the candidates they might be supporting as president?

I guess we'll know the day after the election?