Except the Iraq war wasn't started by Hillary or Obama: https://www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War the war was started by a republican president who told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Moreover, he was FOR the war when we first invaded, in spite of what he says now. http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/18/trump-accidentally-admits-lying-opposing-iraq-war.html

The greedy elite he's referring to are people like himself.

And he does little more than spew *lies. The guy is dishonest, plain and simple.

I understand and agree that asking anyone to fact-check in real-time is a tall order. Sure, we might expect it of properly prepared professionals, but even then knowing every possible relevant citation is nigh impossible.

But if you're a major news network running a debate, with a horde of staff at your disposal, I would love to see a debate that at least calls out the bullshit in near-real-time.

"We're going to fact check that within the next 5 minutes, are you sure that's your answer?"
(5 minutes later)
"It turns out your statements on your attitude toward the Iraq war were rather inaccurate according to these specific citations: ..."

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

There aren't even words.

Saddam was a bad guy is absolutely the most ignorant remark you can make. Were Stalin, Hitler and Mao simply 'bad' guys? Saddam committed multiple genocides against his own people. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed not as collateral damage, but systematically. The remaining widows were systematically raped to impregnate the Kurdish women with half-Arab children and breed the Kurds out of existence. If that's not enough, Saddam invaded and seized Kuwait and declared a part of Iraq. In the Iran-Iraq war, he made extensive use of banned chemical and biological weapons against Iranian forces, before turning them on Kurdish Iraqi's as well. Anybody content to just call that 'bad' behaviour is morally bankrupt.

Oh, but along the way Saddam brutally murdered anybody that spoke out against him, or had their daughters raped or their families otherwise held hostage or also killed. More over, because Saddam classed these people as 'terrorists', clearly we should take him at his word. In that one sense, yes, Saddam was effective at killing and pacifying the people he counted as 'terrorists'. That of course is missing the fact that Saddam was the singularly most terrifying monster in the entire Middle East at the time.

As I recall, it was the Iraq war that deployed so many soldiers that the military had to drop their educational and intelligence requirements for enlistment, as well as no longer rejecting convicts, so you're right, many are now enlisted because it was the only job they could get, not because they wanted to serve and fight if needed, and certainly not because they are our best and brightest....sadly.

What does the President actually do? A few main things:

Chief Diplomat for foreign relations.
Commander in Chief of the military. (although legislature has some checks on that)
Appointing Supreme Court justices.
Presidential Pardons.
Veto power over Legislative bills.

Anything on any Presidential candidate's agenda that doesn't fall under one of those headings is hot air. Considering that, which of the candidates would actually be a better president?

Chief Diplomat role: Hillary wins here, pretty handily. Trump is generally hated by anyone outside of the US. Bernie isn't as smooth and well connected as Hillary. Interestingly enough, this is one area where I think Obama really shines. He's a good talker, and he increased the level of respect that other countries viewed the US with. Some of that was having a very easy act to follow -- Bush and the wars sent us pretty close to rock bottom in terms of how the rest of the world saw us, but Obama is legit as a diplomat even without the bonus of simply being an extremely welcome reprieve from Bush.

Commander in Chief: This one is more open to interpretation, but I think Bernie wins here. He had the right view on Iraq wars when most didn't, and a totally solid track record for a long time. Clinton acts like she was always on the correct side of that also, but she voted for Bush's war when she was in the Senate. Bernie didn't. Whatever she says to try to justify that doesn't change the simple facts of it. Trump could be pretty apocalyptically bad as Commander in Chief, but on the other hand he'd have the legislature and Joint Chiefs to keep him in check if he was doing anything truly insane. I think he's definitely the worst of the three, but I think saying a vote for him is a vote to "let the world burn" is a bit overly dramatic.

Supreme Court appointments: Sanders wins here by a LANDSLIDE. He's got the right idea on all of the judicial topics of the time, and knows exactly how important this is. Hillary is a massive corporate tool. She knows who pays her, and she'd definitely be looking out for their interests when it comes to stuff like Citizens United challenges, etc. I even think that Trump would be massively better than Clinton in this area.

Pardons: I'm specifically thinking of Ed Snowden here. Trump and Clinton both say he is a "traitor". Sanders at least acknowledges that Snowden's revelations did a lot of good, but still says that he should come home and face a trial. So that makes me think he's the best of the three -- but Jill Stein of the Green party says she would pardon Snowden, which makes her my favorite on this particular hot-button issue for me.

Veto powers: Opinions are going to vary on this one. I think Sanders wins considering that he simply stands by his record in the Legislature, which I think he deserves to be proud of. Clinton is a flip-flopping weasel of a politician, and she could easily swing things in favor of her corporate overlords with her veto power. Trump is a wildcard, but the inherent nature of veto power means that he can't do anything truly crazy with it unilaterally -- the worst he could do is get veto-happy and grind the legislature to a standstill (which they tend to do all on their own anyway) or pass something terrible (which would be more the fault of the legislature).


Depending on how any individual voter evaluates those topics, and how the prioritize them, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that any of the candidates would make a better president than any of the others. Personally, I think Sanders is the best of the three, but honestly I'd prefer incompetent President Trump to very dodgy President Clinton.

No and yes. Its the violent and warmongering western policy in that region. We have always destabilized it, yet have learned nothing from it. We just keep going and then wonder why its getting worse. Its a neocon policy. Easy to stop, many people have already said what the solution would be, yet there are always the powerful neocons who live from fear mongering, suffering and wars. And of course from blind following people like you who support them.

2003 was just another puzzle piece. The support of extremists in Syria too, the support of them in Libya aswell. The support of Saudi Arabia is a very big puzzle piece. The CIA operations in that region just as much.
The support of Saddam Hussein also is another small puzzle piece, just as much as we made him think that he can attack Kuwait and we wont interfere. He thought that because we allowed him and instigated him to attack Iran, then supported both sides, because we wanted to destabilize that region once again. Did I mention the coup detat in Iran yet?
And its not that we werent warned about it. Lots of smart people said that giving the Jews Israel would end in disaster. The signs were easy to spot. Lots of people warned about an Iraq war in 2003. Even the neocons own people warned about the IS in documents, yet they ignored it and kept going, strengthening it even more. People warned about what would happen to Libya after Ghaddafi was gone. Again they did not care. Lots of people warned about what was going on in Syria, that Assad was confronted with an extremists group long before the "revolution" that is now known as Al Nusra, a branch of Al Kaida. What did they do? They weakened Assad. Lots of people warned about the refugee crisis and extremists flooding into Europe among those refugees. What do they do? They open the borders and let everyone in without any checks at all, even inviting the whole world to come, ignoring actual laws.

You see, good knowledge of history is mandatory to understand cause and effect. You dont have that knowledge, as you have proved already, because you try to marginalize it by including things from centuries ago and try to solve those with the same solutions from centuries ago. But I dont blame you, since youre probably American. American history teaching is as messed up as their foreign policy.
You cant see coherences in all that. Lots of people dont. Thats why we are doomed to repeat history.

I mean just look at the policy since 9/11. It was meant to bring us all more security from terrorist attacks like that. Yet it has only become worse. Extremists are stronger than ever before and keep getting stronger with everything we do to "weaken" them. And yet people like you dont ask themselves why, actually attack people like me who have realized whats wrong.
Intelligent species my ass.

I think I've seen his brother on TV before, during the whole Iraq war thing...

OMFG. How have republicans thoroughly forgotten bailing out the banks was under Bush?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
BUSH bailed out first the airlines, for nothing in return, then the banks, for nothing in return. Obama sadly continued that flawed policy, but did at least get partial ownership and concessions for our money, and got our money back. Bush simply gave it away with a smile and a nod.

I've been hearing that BS since 3 years into his first term. It's just that, BS. A quick google search, ignoring political sites and sticking with non-partisan factual numbers, and not blindly putting the entire cost of the Iraq war on Obama because Bush kept it's costs 'off the books', will show you quite clearly you're wrong. He's not been good on debt, but a large part of the deficit he did run in his early years are due to the tanked Bush economy, and WAY less taxes coming in without spending cuts. I'll remind you again, republicans turned down a budget that had $10 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes, a budget that would have erased the deficit....but you still blame Obama?

Heard that before too...that Democrats forced lowering banking standards for home loans and securities through the republican held congress and against the wishes of the republicans and Bush...absolute BS not worth refuting, they simply didn't have the majority to 'force' anything.

How many people died of exposure, drowning long after the storm, starvation, lack of water, unsanitary conditions at shelters in NJ? As for rebuilding, Jersey insisted they would do it without FEMA, and even though they had the money, they haven't rebuilt a lot of what's damaged, but still probably a larger percentage than New Orleans.

Clinton absolutely did not have intelligence that Bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on American soil, Bush did. Clinton did not allow Bin Laden's relatives to leave the country after an attack, it's reported Bush did. Clinton had an opportunity to kill Bin Laden, with unknown amounts of collateral damage in a country we weren't allowed into (so an act of war), and decided to not start a war on flimsy 'intelligence'...a good plan now that we know how that goes.

I'm pretty sure you have sand up your ass, and a sever case of cranial rectosis.

Stupid?....well, that's the pot calling the clear glass pitcher black.
Far better leader?!? If only I thought you might be joking, but I know you aren't.
Show me something Obama suggested that's worse than a single one of these Bush/republican plans
Free Bailouts-a Bush/republican idea, repeatedly, getting nothing for it.
9/11- warned about but completely ignored by Bush.
Katrina-do I need to say a word?
The second great depression- (according to republicans)-caused by republicans removing the safeguards put on the stock market and banks, allowing them to play fast and loose, totally screwing our economy.
Iraq-again, do I need to say a word?
Putting the Iraq war 'off the books' to try to blame Obama for the cost that was ignored during Bush-uh...yeah, keep trying that.
Cutting taxes while raising spending outrageously-that was Bush
Raising the national debt more than any president before him-I know fox told you that was Obama, but it was really Bush. Even the first years when federal income was severely depressed (thanks to the economy Bush left us with) he didn't spend like Bush, if you look at the REAL numbers, not the white washed, no war, no homeland security, no bailout numbers the republicans pretend are real.

Because the republicans decided that their plan was to obstruct ANY idea from Obama (clearly stated BEFORE he took office, and followed through), it didn't matter a whit how he led, they refused to follow. It's not about his leadership, it's about the republican leadership thinking that beating Obama is more important than governing. Refusing a 10-1 deal where for every $1 in raised taxes they get $10 in spending cuts....and they said NO! Get real for once, it's not Obama's leadership or lack thereof that's screwing us, it's partisan politics being more important than the nation...and we all know which side plays that game more often and harder. (EDIT: I do admit that both 'sides' play that game, however.)
10 votes total? What the F*&K are you talking about. You mean 10 REPUBLICAN votes in the house? You are simply wrong he only got 10 votes total.
"The House has never failed to pass an annual budget resolution since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974. However this spring noted that the GOP-led Congress didn’t pass a final resolution in 1998, 2004 and 2006."
..."And the politics of the moment are a far cry from last year, when the House and Senate easily passed Obama’s first budget on the president’s 100th day in office. The budget measure last year did not attract any GOP support."
Well...enough said. I know you won't really take any of this to heart, you drank the fox news koolaid long ago and facts no longer matter.

Treasonous. That's how I would describe the whole debacle.
Odd, during Bush the Republicans stood firm on the idea that 'partisanship ends at the border', but that idea evaporated in their mind the day Obama was elected.
Funny that they use the 'French president opposing the Iraq war' example, since he would have been 100% correct had he been invited to speak to oppose Bush.

It's amateur night in Afghanistan, yeehaw!

Unsurprising, really, considering the first Iraq war, 3/4ths of the American casualties were "friendly" (American) fire.

I talked with some Brit soldiers not long after they came back from Iraq #1, they said their Colonel went to liaise with his American counterpart in a Scorpion light tank. The American Colonel stared at their vehicle in amazement, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?"

Um...Ok.
The Iranian 'revolution' was a surprise to most, including the Iranians. Carter didn't cause it.
Iran/Iraq war wasn't our problem, or fault. Regan getting involved and backing Saddam ended with atrocities and the US/Iraq wars to remove him later...should have let Iran do the dirty work.
Panama was a lease, which ran out. You think we should have gone to war with Panama and stolen it? Oh man.
We should have let the soviets 'take' Afghanistan, otherwise known as the graveyard of empires. We certainly should have stayed the hell out of there ourselves. Often invaded, never held, that's Afghanistan.
I'll just ignore the rest of your post. It needs no reply....except to note that your attempted insult of 'peanut farmer' (a noble career itself) ignores that he's also a Nuclear Sub Executive Officer/commanding officer AND designer.

During Carter's single term in office, Iran became a fundamentalist terror state, Saddam began his coup that led to the Iran-Iraq war-Hostage crisis?? Hello?? He gave the Sandinista cash for their fun-in-the-sun-OH-He gave away the Panama Canal, right? Claimed that the Soviets were no longer a 'threat' and they marched right on into Afghanistan. He set-up foreign policy for the next wave of presidential failures and shills for the assholes who really run the show, you know them by their smell, the richest gadjillionaires in the world, who have stolen humanity's hope for anything but anarchy or global fascism and world-government control and surveillance-state, in the form of what the world is fast-becoming. Yeah, the old peanut farmer was was a real piece of work.

Wake up people, the United States presidency has been a ruse for close to fifty years.

I lost the link to this one old report from early on in the latest Iraq war. Anyone have a link to the one about US troops arresting hot girls off the street so they could gang rape them in prison, where the ones that became pregnant disappeared and were never seen again? They had a bit in the report about higher ups finding out and confiscating the cell phone videos, and the administration saying it would serve no good purpose to release them. I'm wondering if those vids will ever see the light of day... doubt it.

-scheherazade