Tuesday, October 18, 2016

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war." — John Adams

As I've said before, never mind all the other issues — when you vote in a few days you'll be deciding whether you want war or peace.

And no, this isn't about Trump insulting Pakistan or some damn place and war resulting. That really isn't how wars get started these days. Trump actually sends the message that he's willing to hold negotiations about our relationships with all countries, because our strength is obvious, and threats aren't necessary.

As for insults, Trump didn't say these things about Vladimir Putin, who runs Russia, the second most capable nuclear power on Earth.

"I think (Putin) is at heart, a bully ... you have to stand up, and you have to encircle, and you have to try to choke off his ability to be so aggressive.”
"I see a very cold-blooded, calculating former KGB agent who is determined to ... enrich himself and his closest colleagues..."
"Aside (from) his personality, ... his agenda is one that threatens American interests." [link]
Hillary Clinton did. Trump insults illegal aliens, maybe, but Hillary insults somebody with nuclear stockpiles. Smart. Nothing new about that. During the Clinton administration, she egged Bill on to attack Serbia, which in effect amounted to a big insult to Russia, and all that resulted in a new Islamic state in Europe, Kosovo. And as Secretary of State, she was instrumental in the overthrow and murder of Qadafi, leaving Libya without a coherent government, creating chaos there, and also making Libya into a departure point for Africans moving into Europe, which Qadafi had prevented.

And now she wants to do pretty much the same thing to Syria. With the same results. When you remove a strong man like Assad, or Saddam Hussein, you get chaos and untold human suffering. Most Middle East countries are better off with a strong man, because without one, they have civil wars and chaos until another one takes over.

So your peace vote goes to Trump, definitely not to Clinton. Lest you doubt me, here's Stefan Molyneux on the subject:



Pat Buchanan wrote years ago that there was an understanding between Russia and the US that if Russia permitted Germany to reunite, NATO would not expand to the east. We broke that agreement, obviously. It's almost like we, or our rulers, are angry with Russia for not being communist any more, because we were never this belligerent towards the USSR.

And here's Buchanan on our current pointless standoff with Russia, from Townhall [link].

Trolling for War with Russia

by Pat Buchanan

Some 50 State Department officials have signed a memo calling on President Obama to launch air and missile strikes on the Damascus regime of Bashar Assad.

A "judicious use of stand-off and air weapons," they claim, "would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."

In brief, to strengthen the hand of our diplomats and show we mean business, we should start bombing and killing Syrian soldiers.

Yet Syria has not attacked us. And Congress has not declared war on Syria, or authorized an attack. Where do these State hawks think President Obama gets the authority to launch a war on Syria?

Does State consider the Constitution to be purely advisory when it grants Congress the sole power to declare war? Was not waging aggressive war the principal charge against the Nazis at Nuremberg?

If U.S. bombs and missiles rain down on Damascus, to the cheers of the C-Street Pattons, what do we do if Bashar Assad's allies Iran and Hezbollah retaliate with Benghazi-type attacks on U.S. diplomats across the Middle East? What do we do if Syrian missiles and Russian planes starting shooting down U.S. planes?

Go to war with Hezbollah, Iran and Russia?

Assume U.S. strikes break Syria's regime and Assad falls and flees. Who fills the power vacuum in Damascus, if not the most ruthless of the terrorist forces in that country, al-Nusra and ISIS?

Should ISIS reach Damascus first, and a slaughter of Alawites and Christians ensue, would we send an American army to save them?
Read the rest here:
----------------
Quibcag: Illustration found at http://imgur.com/gallery/8cW3K. Gary Johnson was invited to comment also, but he wasn't sure where Syria is.



2 comments:

  1. I told people for a while they were desperate. The collapse must be close if they're considering starting a Big War. Their timetable has gone warp speed lately. They're not winning, they're watching the clock and the fear is palpable now. This downward spiral keeps going down. They say Obama has the lowest growth ever, but when you put in the massive inflation they're denying, he's actually presiding over a collapse. If they have less than two percent growth every year, and everything cost three times as much as when Bush was in there, what you really have isn't growth its massive contraction AKA collapse. They're pumping the stock market like a gang bang and its still rolling up and down like a roller coaster. They're fucked. They're desperate. WWIII isn't inconceivable if they need something to cover their ass when it all falls down.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have said for quite a while, the odds of us having an election have been getting slimmer and slimmer. What would a hot war with a nuclear exchange do to the odds? Please understand this, for all of Donald Trump’s bad points, he has now taken on the both the Dems and Repubs as a “system”. For all intents and purposes, they are one and the same. He cannot be allowed to win because both the Clinton and Bush crime families will be exposed. Much of the crime has been financial and why our economy and markets are on the verge of collapse.

    A war will serve to postpone/prevent an election so Trump nor anyone else will be able to move us back toward the rule of law. A war will also be blamed as the reason our economy and markets fall apart and completely seize up. It will be said, “our policies were working and would have worked …except for the war”. Unfortunately, I believe kicking the table over is THE only option left.

    The Final Act will be World War by Bill Holter.
    H/T the always interesting Woodpile Report.
    An even worse scenario would be war (triggered by an ill-advised 'no fly zone' over Syria perhaps) during ''the transition period'', i.e. post-election but before the new Prez is sworn in. Even more so if the vote goes (as I suspect it may) to a 2000-like 'photo finish' in dispute for some time after election day.

    ReplyDelete