Among the differences in the debate, this goround, both Trump and Mrs.
Clinton seemed to show a tone with sobriety consistently throughout
compared. Sobriety referenced is toward Holy Books nuance, very old
word and root, meaning for summary sake, keeping oneself under control
at deeper levels.
With respect to time, a portion of the debate
went to discussing personal attitudes with regard to opposite gender
roles, which was not either of the Nominees fault in terms of selection
of the questions. It might just be a trend of the times that television
and media seem to focus more on topics such as that, which leaves the
question, was too much a percentage of the debate revolving around the
subject of what kinds of things were said off the record, perhaps put on
the record, but intended to be off the record?
For those of us
that read on a lateral level whereat inevitable gleanings of information
about the character of people, such as about what could be perceived as
private lives of moderators, present themselves, there might be some
irony that one of the moderators has seemed to have made it a trademark
since the Presidential debate almost a year ago, of interrupting the
speakers in an irksome manner. Does such a person exist, and did that
occur? There is a line between rudeness and being assertive to moderate
a program. Which side of the line?-, will not be spoken about here,
instead, let the readers of this write-up decide.
Overall, there was a respectable amount of substantive educated content in the debate, which is a definite plus.
On the subject of the Middle East and Syria:
- The
likelihood is very strong, that there are terrorists out there, that
bounce around geographically their poles of central activities, moving
from one Middle East town to the next.
- There could be
terrorist groups lurking within other terrorist groups that we, the U.S.
do not know the names of yet, with respect to popular read knowledge in
news media.
- A messy situation exists currently, where the U.S. has found ISIS/ISIL/IS an enemy, whereat essentially, ISIS etc, is an en segue,
in sequence, terror group to Al Qaeda; even if Al Qaeda gets completely
destroyed, then ISIS gets completely destroyed, the most knowledgeable
of Islam scholars will tell you, and the U.S. will agree that, there
will probably be an an effort by some terrorist group or some terrorist
mind to attempt to develop yet another terrorist group, and of course
try to hide behind sincere peace loving Muslim populace. Similar
concept with individual terrorists, one terrorist is removed, then
another even sneakier tries to take the previous place; one geographic
region gets resolved, then a similar problem springs up elsewhere, it
could be simply the nature of the world.
- Aleppo, Baghdad,
Mosul, you name the place, the place will have a certain time in the
history books in chapters about insurgents and fighting various wars,
then new chapters will begin, in some circumstances on the
superficiality. The bigger picture, stepping back from the trees to see
the forest is an idea here.
- With all the
messiness of terror cells and groups exchanging rings around a circus,
extreme caution as standard agreeable by any military scientist or
strategist, has to be taken on simply arming anyone in the Middle East.
The U.S. cannot be the victim of when one button
pops-up and gets hammered down, another button pops-up and you have to
race against time to hammer it down before you run out of time, the evil
game, when the buttons that are popping up might be painted a different
color, or have different names, but they are all coming from the same
guy.
History:
Briefly without detail or illustration--
When
Afghani Mujahideen got arm help for their mission of independence, were
there or were there not some slimy characters that took the weapons and
later evolved into terrorist cells such as Al Qaeda?
How many
different Kurdish groups, referring to military fighting groups, have
evolved over the past 50 years? Can the average American citizen name
all of them off the top of his or head in under 60 seconds? If they can
accomplish that, can they give a brief description of how each splinter
group, or outgrowth ramified from the other groups and how they
interrelate? It is a tough task.
The concept of being dragged
into wars by shadowy powers in the Eastern Hemisphere, the result of
crafty gambits, has dogged and strained America's military for perhaps
up to a century.
Crafty gambits on the part of enemies of America
and terrorists could include sacrificing their own lives, their own
people, their own soldiers, in the effort to lure American troops into
fights, then the unethical doings of the traitors that turn and murder
American soldiers, the head-hunters for money, the 'businessmen' that
want to melt down military vehicles and sell the metal for money, and
much more.
Trying to explain to millions of Americans all and
every detail of every unethical gambit that every terrorist has done to
try to hurt America is tough to do in just an hour.
The U.S. has to be rightly guided, as any nation, as much as possible.
Posted by HCN.
