Discussion:
Hillary's vision for the new millennials: "limited military coercion"... Result: Russians told BBC News that loving the West before didn't do them any good. So, Hillary's confrontation with the world may not be so "limited" after all!
(too old to reply)
lo yeeOn
2016-10-27 06:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hillary spoke emphatically about setting up a no-fly zone in Syria
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
their homes.

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
in Syria.)

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
centers.

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..."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37766688

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
her people!

lo yeeOn

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

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/10/26/clintons-no-fly-zone-over-syria-will-not-save-lives-it-will-lead-to-war-with-russia/

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
Wallace.

"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,
emphasis added)

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..."
TT
2016-10-27 06:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by lo yeeOn
Hillary spoke emphatically about setting up a no-fly zone in Syria
Didn't you already post a topic about this...

I guess you're running out of even vaguely interesting Putinleaks.
--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear"
lo yeeOn
2016-10-27 07:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TT
Post by lo yeeOn
Hillary spoke emphatically about setting up a no-fly zone in Syria
Didn't you already post a topic about this...
I guess you're running out of even vaguely interesting Putinleaks.
No, I ain't.

Do you know about the horrible veteran suicide rate? Do you know that
since Hillary started the Syrian civil war in late 2011, there are
already close to 500,000 war deaths and millions more have been forced
to flee their homes? You want me to remind you of the horrible costs
of war?

I have always talked about the danger of war. That time when I talked
about Hillary's intention to confront the Russians, I talked about
what struck me the most after hearing the debate. I did not have
other sources to cite. Later, I probably cited the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs who criticized Hillary's `no-fly' zone stand against
Syria.

Now I found a piece by Chussadovsky who talks about the recklessness
of Hillary's confrontational stand toward the Syria-Russian alliance.

I subsequently also posted a piece by Dennis Kucinich, a longtime
Democrat and an acknowledged American patriot, who is now severely
criticizing Hillary's confrontational stand over Syria and calling for
peace-loving Americans to work together to oppose that dangerous stand
now, instead of later.

Hillary is carrying water for the neocons! She is bringing doom to
the planet because of her personal ambition and her patrons' delusion.

By the way, I also cited the BBC News' Gabriel Gatehouse piece.

You'd be nuts if you think the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dennis
Kucinich, Michel Chussadovsky, et al. are speaking for Putin. Putin
would be tried for treason if he'd just let the West eat up Russia
like it did during the Yeltsin years.

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..."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37766688

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
her people!

lo yeeOn

--------

Hillary spoke emphatically about setting up a no-fly zone in Syria
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
their homes.

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
in Syria.)

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
centers.

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..."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37766688

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
her people!

lo yeeOn

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

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/10/26/clintons-no-fly-zone-over-syria-will-not-save-lives-it-will-lead-to-war-with-russia/

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
Wallace.

"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,
emphasis added)

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..."
TT
2016-10-28 17:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by lo yeeOn
Post by TT
Post by lo yeeOn
Hillary spoke emphatically about setting up a no-fly zone in Syria
Didn't you already post a topic about this...
I guess you're running out of even vaguely interesting Putinleaks.
No, I ain't.
Sure you are, there never was anything of relevance with those leaks in
first place.
Post by lo yeeOn
Do you know about the horrible veteran suicide rate? Do you know that
since Hillary started the Syrian civil war in late 2011
How can Secretary of State start a civil war...

I guess Arab Spring and Assad using nerve gas is Hillary's fault too.


, there are
Post by lo yeeOn
already close to 500,000 war deaths and millions more have been forced
to flee their homes?
Thank you Vladimir.
--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear"
*skriptis
2016-10-30 02:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TT
Post by lo yeeOn
Post by TT
Post by lo yeeOn
Hillary spoke emphatically about setting up a no-fly zone in Syria
Didn't you already post a topic about this...
I guess you're running out of even vaguely interesting Putinleaks.
No, I ain't.
Sure you are, there never was anything of relevance with those leaks in
first place.
Post by lo yeeOn
Do you know about the horrible veteran suicide rate? Do you know that
since Hillary started the Syrian civil war in late 2011
How can Secretary of State start a civil war...
I guess Arab Spring and Assad using nerve gas is Hillary's fault too.
Assad uses nerve gas? Wtf?
Post by TT
, there are
Post by lo yeeOn
already close to 500,000 war deaths and millions more have been forced
to flee their homes?
Thank you Vladimir.
Look I know facts are killing you the neocons have overthrown
Saddam's secular regime by claiming he was supporting islamists,
which is an utter nonsense, and they also lied to the world he
was building wmd. Clearly an aggression on a sovereign nation.


Now if the end result was really that good, removing a weirdo
autocrat and improving the lives of the people, we might have
overlooked the path to it, but we can't because the end result is
a disaster. Iraqis aren't living better in fact they live in
hell.

Hundreds of thousand of dead people as a result of aggression,
unleashed terrorism, country split and torn apart, constant
terror, radicalisation, death, misery.

They repeated it in Libya where security situation ended up so
bad that even US ambassador got killed. Just imagine then how an
average Libyan is doing with all the gangs, militias and
jihadists running the country. With Gadaffi they had security,
social peace, best living standard in whole of Africa and Europe
too had security on its southern borders.


But the neocons still keep pushing, since 2011 they've been arming
and funding islamic terrorists in Syria to fight against Syrian
government. That's the reason Syrian civil war broke out. How
would Americans feel if Boston bombers brothers were funded from
abroad? And if there were thousands of them, willing to commit
such acts. Maybe 5% but of huge population like Latinos? It's a
hell of epic proportions and neocons are behind it, and Hillary
is their man for this cycle.

The stuff that really happened in Syria, how it all started was
somewhat similar to Ferguson protests in a way that both groups
has some reasonable objections to the governments. Assad was
certainly not perfect and Syria wasn't a proper western
democracy. But he still is the most pro western guy there.


In America such scenario of violent gangs going after the power is
impossible but imagine foreign powers praising Ferguson
protesters for raising their justified concerns regarding human
rights, black rights etc but in a violent way and who ally
themselves with Boston bombers and their associates from abroad
to violently fight the US government.


After Afghanistan, which I forgot btw, and is a complete mess as
well, Iraq, Libya and these attempts in Syria since 2011 you have
a nerve to draw Putin in all this for his 2015 support to Syrian
government?

Russia (not Putin personally), are helping legitimate Syrian
government.

I welcome that, like all normal peace loving people.


These calls for stopping "Russian aggression" would be like calls
to "stop US and UK bombings of German children" in 1944. Sounds
noble but considering Auschwitz ovens were still working at the
time, it isn't really.

If you're against Syria and Russia here, you're for head chopping
jihadists.

I don't think you really are, you just hate Russia.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Loading...