Would President Trump be a risk to global security?

Donald Trump has been named one of the top 10 greatest risks to global stability, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

They say that a Trump presidency threatens the global economy, as well as US politics and national security.

They rated the danger of various risks on a scale of 1 to 25, with 25 considered most dangerous. Trump was given a score of 12.

It is the first time a US candidate has been included in the list.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35836099

 

The established order presumably do not care for the upstart. Which is like two of the most unpleasant farts vying for the nostrils of freedom.

 

It's just continuous propaganda against Trump. The only threat he poses is to the GOP and Democrat establishment. They're scared of losing their life long privileges.

As for global instability. Obama's administration and neocons behinds the scenes have caused more global instability than any other U.S administration in last few decades. Libyan regime change fiasco happened under Obama's watch, attempted regime change in Syria which resulted in millions and millions of refugees, U.S sponsored coup in Ukraine which totally undermined European economy and security etc...etc...Nothing to do with Donald Trump. The global stability has already been gravely undermined.

 

I agree that Trump threatens the whole political establishment that favours the neocon global domination strategy no matter what the cost. Personally, I dislike him, but I like others dislike Hilary more, who would be a greater disaster. It is telling that the big-gun Neocons are jumping ship from the Republican Party and now backing Hilary.

In the final analysis what this election is coming down to is a choice between bad and worse.

 

What global security?

 

Hillary Clinton has been named one of the top 10 greatest risks to global stability, according to the FreedomSeeker Intelligence Unit.

 

There was no coup in Ukraine and the US would never sponsor any coup in Ukraine. The democratic forces in Ukraine kicked out a pro-Russian fecal matter eating traitor who actually came to power with the help of the barbarians from the North country - AKA Moskaliy.

The only threat to European security is russia..

 

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

Sir Winston Churchill

 

Right...There was no co. The pro seperatists didnt attack cities and towns that didnt want to be part of this Natzi co. A civil war didnt break out and a bunch of people didnt die. They had a normal democratic election. And of cource the phone recording of obama's cabinet debating who should be in power doesnt exist either. Nor has the US government funded Kiev in their endevours.

Is this what you believe? Are you that ignorant or do you like lying?

 

As we have seen, neocon policy is much more dangerous. In fact, this whole global terror threat could be justly blamed on the neocons as it was through their policies that we have this mess now.

A vote not for Trump is a vote for neocons. Don't vote for neocons, vote for trump.

 

Just another attempt by the BBC to mislead the public. The US has been the greatest threat to world security ever since it moved close to Russia's borders. If Trump has a following its not because he's so well liked, but because people see him as their only chance to restore America's economy and avoid war.

 

PS, did you know that your username is an oxymoron, just like Military Intelligence, and Jumbo Shrimp?

 

That's probably why he's against Trump. He likes borderline communist Burnie instead

 

You're skipping the part where Russia invaded and startered a covert civil war there.

Not by accident mind you. You're doing that on purpose .

 

Oh then Friedman of Stratfor was wrong, and it was not the most blatant coup in history? I can't understand why companies go to him for advice, shouldn't they be going to you?

 

Partizan1 - I can't understand you. If you hate the people living in lands that were part of Russia and never under Poland so much, that you have to resort to name calling and insults, then why don't you split the country up, instead of trying to kill them off and taking their land?

 

What has changed for you since GW left and Obama came in?

 

I don’t know whether you heard of Marc Faber or not but he explained it perfectly well.

Faber: I'd Vote for Trump, Clinton Will Destroy World
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/v...i-d-vote-for-trump-clinton-will-destroy-world

And I’ve never heard anyone describing the state of the U.S economy better. Witty.

 

"Invaded" after the conflict already broke out into a full blown scale civil war.

Us funded the co. We know this. If there was a co in mexico and Russia started it, how do you think US would react?

Even this is a failed comparison because of the high value Russian assets that already existed in Ukraine prior to the co.

I think that if Russia stages something like this, the US won't even bother with mercinairies and send their full regular army in to support the legally elected leader.

The people who have power in Ukraine now took that power from their own people with force. Did I mention that they were militants neo natzis and that an interpols most wanted right winged extremist became the chief military advisor? Yep that's the people that US is supporting. And from the sound of it, it sounds like it's the type of people you support also.


So we don't recognise an actual democratic process that happened in Crimea which was transparent, but we recognising a Militant Neo natzis who took power by force.

Ukrainians were fleeing to Russia at such a number that the new Kiev government erected checkpoints to keep them in as they launched their attacks on their own cities who didn't want to join them.

Of course Russia helped.


Unlike in Russia's case, America helps rebels who have nothing to do with them. More often then not, these rebels turn out to be terrorists.


We don't see an outcry when our country does the things that it has done which is many times worse than anything Russia has done in Ukraine.

A volent neo natzi co happened. Ukrainian people rebeled against this new natzis power. So Kiev launch attacks on cities that didn't want to join.


Why did we destroy Iraq, Lynia, and nearly Syria again? And having done so, isn't it beyond hypocritical for us to lecture, much less condemn Russia for doing far less?


Neither the US nor Europe has any real intests in Ukraine. We have used them and threw them away.

The real purpose behind Ukraine was to incite a response from Russia which was then used to justify military expenditures by portraying Russia something that they are not. That is why neocons contradict themselves so much. Who has the biggest defense budget? Who has the most military bases throughout the world? Who has attacked and bombed the most countries? Who destroyed lybia, Iraq and incited a rebellion in Syria? Who's militairy blocks continue expand to a rival's borders?

Was it Russia or was it the US? Who is the real agressors?

Ukraine, like all the rest, is the work of neocons.

 

You know what. I had just wrote a response countering each of your points, was just about to hit the post button and then realized, you know what? (*)(*)(*)(*) that (*)(*)(*)(*). You're still spouting off about neo Nazi this and neo Nazi that like a pathtic broken record on an endless loop. You and I have already discussed this in great detail yet here you are saying the exact same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) as before. It's pathtic. Sad. And I'm done wasting time on it. When you find the slightest decency to drop your stupid Nazi bull(*)(*)(*)(*) then I'll consider engaging in legitimate conversation and debate with you (you won't) tell then..........

 

You mean that discussion that you lost? Ok.

 

"Whatever floats your boat"

 

Indeed. And yours is sunk.

Goodnight

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-article-world-will-hate-donald-trump-ok.html

something for you

 

I won't be happy until he's at 25!