2016-10-27 06:50:03 UTC
during the third presidential debate. Tersely, she spoke of saving
lives, as if it was self-evident.
Of course, she was trying to pull the wool over people's eyes for a
whole host of reasons. First, this is not a war that was only about
to begin that you can nip in the bud. She was actively plotting
the war in Syria, bringing the Saudis, the Qataris, the Turks, and all
the resources of the whole Obama administration to bear. Because of
it, she has ignited a civil war that is now 5 long years old and is
still going, resulting in 400,000 war deaths and millions fleeing
Furthermore, because of what she started, Russia is now in Syria.
Will a sudden imposition of a no-fly zone there not meet fierce
opposition from the Russians who have invested so much in defending
Syria from another western interventionist regime change?
(In fact Russia is in Syria in such a way that our Joint Chiefs have
told Congress that they would oppose a move to impose a "no-fly" zone
But even if the Russians cowardly flee before our bombers arrive, will
a no-fly zone get established without our bombers dropping a single
bomb on Syria?
The truth is we won't even be sending bombers into the Syrian sky to
devastate the land below. We will in practice fire criuse missiles
from the Mediterranean because that way we wouldn't put a single US
man/woman up within the firing line of Syrian defense.
(Maybe that's what tricky Hillary meant by "saving lives" while our
military kill people and devastate their homes?)
But Hillary's plan will only protect those who will be doing the
greatest killing and devastation. She will also send boots on Syrian
soil to accomplish her regime change dream for Assad. The lives of
those who wear the boots won't be protected after all. Perhaps, it is
the expensive bombers that Hillary is thinking of saving, not really
the people who are involved.
Our cruise missiles will kill many civilians and devastate population
Impose "no-fly" zones to "save lives"?
Nay! Imposing a no-fly zone or using killing and destruction to
coerce the downfall of a government won't save lives! She was
contradicting herself if you are capable of piecing two statements
together. But she was bankng on the fact that her audience wouldn't
see the contradiction.
Hillary is not bluffing.
In Prof. Chossudovsky's piece below, her likely Defense appointee will
overrule the Joint Chiefs. So, a huge confrontation will ensue when
Hillary breaks her glass-ceiling.
But because of Hillary's supporters, the Russians are getting ready to
engage us in a war. They are at least psychologically more prepared
than we Americans are because their leaders are preparing them for the
day of reckoning, which Hillary has promised us with an open mic!
And historically, the Russians have shown themselves to be a
culturally rather cohesive force against external aggression.
BBC News' Gabriel Gatehouse calls the Russian attitude "a different
reality". He asked a Russian: "When I first came to Russia twenty
years ago, I thought the Russians liked the West." The response was
polite but damning:
"You're absolutely right. And it didn't do us any good..."
So good luck, America! Hillary's "limited military coercion" may turn
out to be not so "limited" after all! And woe will be to Syria and
Clinton's `No-Fly Zone' over Syria Will Not "Save Lives" - It Will
Lead to War with Russia October 26, 2016 By 21wire 1 Comment
Prof Michel Chossudovsky Global Reaseach
The media has failed to address the confrontation between the
U.S. State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Francis
Dunford (image, left) has warned both the US Senate as well Secretary
of State John Kerry in no uncertain terms that a "No Fly Zone" over
Syria would lead to war with both Syria and Russia, intimating a
dangerous process of military escalation.
In a Senate Arms Services Committee hearing, Dunford said, responding
to questions from Republican Senator Roger Whicker (Mississippi):
"Right now, Senator, for us to control all of the airspace in Syria
it would require us to go to war, against Syria and Russia ... a
pretty fundamental decision that certainly I'm not going to make."
(Senate Armed Services Committee, September 22, 2016, emphasis added)
At the third presidential debate, Hillary Clinton reasserted her
commitment that if elected president, she would implement a
no-fly-zone, intimating that the objective was to "save lives":
"I think a no-fly zone could save lives and could hasten the end of
the conflict. I am well aware of the really legitimate concerns you
have expressed from both the president and the general," Clinton said
in response to a question from Fox News debate moderator Chris
"This would not be done just on the first day. This would take a lot
of negotiation and would also take making it clear to the Russians and
Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground
... I think we could strike a deal and make it clear to the Russians
and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the
best interest of the people on the ground in Syria." (Fox News,
At present, under the Obama administration, the joint chiefs of staff
are opposed to the "No Fly Zone".
Under a Clinton presidency, a new Secretary of Defense as well as a
new Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, firmly committed to "A No
fly Zone" over Syria would be appointed.
Michele le Angelique Flournoy, a former Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy is Hillary's choice for the position of Secretary of Defense,
who favors the ""No Fly Zone" option.
According to Defense One: "The woman expected to run the Pentagon
under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push
President Bashar al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would
send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region."
Confirmed by the Leaked Emails Michele Flournoy is a crony of the
Clintons. She has "called for `limited military coercion'" to help
remove Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over
parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels." This is tantamount to a
no fly zone to protect the terrorists including ISIS Daesh from
actions by Syrian and Russian forces.
According to Defense One:
"Flournoy, and several of her colleagues at the Center for New
American Security, or CNAS, have been making the case for sending more
American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the
Obama administration has been willing to commit. Since Russia's
increased involvement, the facts on the ground in Syria, she said, "Do
not support the kind of negotiated conditions we would like to get to."
U.S. policy should be the removal of Assad even if that meant "using
limited military coercion", Flournoy said, at Monday's annual CNAS
conference in Washington. .
Flournoy did not deny the entire report that she favors increased
U.S. intervention; for instance, she acknowledged her support for
U.S. "strikes using standoff weapons - to retaliate against Syrian
military targets "to enforce the no-bomb zone..."