Home | About | Donate

Hillary Syria Fact Check: "Safe Zones" Equals "Ground Troops"


#1


#2

Hillary is quite transparent to those who know how to use the looking glass. The war mongers would have a field day spinning her hawkish tendencies into more perpetual war. She is not strong enough to be a president of peace, much like 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44.


#3

Too bad you are not on the MSM, Robert. Thanks for the article.


#4

Both candidates are naive at best, but in reality showing political maneuvering disconnected from reality. Clinton approach would have worked if we were to use the air support, which is now obsolete due to Russian involvement. Sanders plan is also unworkable, there has not been any Arab coalition since 1967 Six Day war, which was a disaster, and now the Arab coalition is not about to effectively start a war with Russia.


#5

It's a fact that every militaristic state depends upon propaganda. If The People were not told a fictitious story, few would go along with the ruse.

"Whoever calls for the US to establish a "safe zone" in Syria is basically saying, "I agree with John McCain that we should send US ground troops to Syria."

I would not be surprised if a pro-military Hollywood scriptwriter/hack wasn't hired to come up with these euphemisms. Today it's "Safe zone." And how about those "Moderate rebels" just waiting for U.S. training at, what, 1 million dollars a pop?

Similar euphemisms were used initially in Vietnam where U.S. troops were sent as "advisors."

The best depiction of the military mindset was one that was produced by Monty Python many years ago. It was a skit where each troop just followed his commander's orders and jumped off the roof. In linear formation, each one seeing the fate before him did nothing to question it. He just repeated "the protocol."

The premise of following orders is the crux of the Mars-rules military establishment and it's also crept into all patriarchal, top-down hierarchical arrangements ranging from corporate protocols to those normalized inside schools.

How Democratic can any organization or institution BE if it's formatted upon a Father-Knows-Best central authority figure?

And when that figure lies, or, as America's founders put it, "makes war at his pleasure," so long as there is a command chain in place, too many will just jump off the roof by obeying orders. And so many of these orders are based on fictions, fallacies, and outright falsehoods.... LIES told way too often. Today those lies are packaged by P.R. firms and served up in ways that make things toxic SEEM as sweet as sugar (or one of its faux chemical substitutes).

Good catch here, Mr. Naiman:

"(Have you noticed how Republicans who demand that we "listen to our generals" when they ask for more troops don't seem to be interested in listening to our generals when they say "that's not going to work unless we send troops"?)"


#6

" I think it's important that the US make it very clear to Putin that it is not acceptable for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing people on behalf of Assad." HRC

That is a statement by an insane person! The US is doing exactly the same thing to remove Assad and to foment regime change in Syria in order to install a US quisling! Assad, has asked Putin to come to his aid, but who asked the US?


#7

Why does anyone think what McCain has to say is important? John McCain is nothing but an insane war monger!
And you need no more proof that McCain is insane fascist than this: Anyone that would pick that crazy, pistol packin, mama from Alaska as his running mate for V.P. belongs in an insane asylum!


#9

They have no shame. If any country in the world, needs regime change it is the # 1 terrorist country... and we all know who that is!


#13

Democrats considering caucusing for Hillary Clinton need to face the realty that they are caucusing in favor of war. Neocon Hillary's hawkish foreign policy is indistinguishable, I repeat indistinguishable, from that of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham. This is not just rhetoric. Check it out.

Hillary not only voted for the Iraq war, she was an impassioned advocate for it. Then she led the charge to attack Libya. Then she publicly called for President Obama to attack Syria, but the UK Parliament, the US Congress (only because President Obama chose to ask for Congressional approval), US opinion polls and ultimately President Obama said "no". Face it, if Hillary becomes President there will no longer be anyone to tell her "no".

But after her call to attack Syria was rebuffed by the UK, Congress, and President Obama, Hillary continued her aggressive neocon call for the US to get involved in the sovereign nation of Syria's civil war. In her book, she criticized President Obama for not finding and arming US backed terrorists in Syria against the government of Syria. The CIA did what Hillary suggested. Never mind that this flies in the face of international law.

The result of Hillary's hawkish neocon policies has been the creation of enormous ungovernable tracts of oil rich land. This has enabled the rise of ISIS, the wealthiest funded terrorists in history and more than four million men, women, and children refugees pouring into the ocean and over the borders of neighboring nations, destabilizing them and threatening Europe. And the war in Syria has escalated into a confrontation where Russian jets are operating in the country legally at the invitation of Syria, and US jets are operating there illegally in support of "our" terrorists.

As if this isn't enough US involvement in death and destruction in an endless war in the Middle East, just yesterday at the first Democratic Presidential Debate,
Hillary, in addition to stating that Iranians are her enemy, called for a "no fly zone" in Syria. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran who sits on the Armed Services Committee, immediately sounded the alarm bell warning that those supporting this have an obligation to disclose to the American public that in so doing they are calling for a large number of "boots on the ground" and the inevitable accompaniment of the loss of American lives.

Today in Joe Biden's Rose Garden statement--with President Obama at his side--announcing that he will not seek the Democratic nomination for President, the Vice President issued a warning. He made the point that we must learn the lesson of history that every time bad people do bad things in the world it is not our obligation or wise for the US to rush to war. There can be no doubt that this was a special delivery message for Hillary.

It is time to understand that if you are in favor of Hillary but are for peace you are simply steeped in denial. You have your head in the sand. Being for Hillary for peace is an oxymoron. To ignore how she has voted, what she has said, how she has acted, and what she proposes, would be folly. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war, a vote for more dead and wounded US soldiers, many more dead and increasing hatred of the US in other countries from people we do not know or understand. It is a vote for endless war in the Middle East, and the possibility of a direct confrontation with nuclear armed Russia in the Middle East or Ukraine.

So stay alert and be aware. Inform yourselves, be accountable, take responsibility, and know who and what you are supporting and how you are voting. Since 1968 I have voted in every Presidential Election. In each election I have voted for a candidate in favor of peace first and for exhausting all diplomatic options before putting war on the tablfe and then and only then if a war of necessity and not of choice. Hillary led the charge for a war of choice known to be based on lies, then voted for it, and look at the morass she led us into. We have a two party system. Are you really in favor of having both parties led by neocon war hawks, in the palms of the lobbyists and campaign contributors for the military industrial complex, in a rush to war, robbing the voters of a choice for diplomacy and peace? If so and you think the public is disillusioned and cynical now, "you ain't seen nothin' yet".


#14

Shantiananda, I was going to say the same thing. Whether the US likes it or not, Assad's government is the legitimate one, and according to a friend of mine who lives in Syria, they love him. Yet, because the US says he has to go (which I understand is because that is what Saudi Arabia. our good friends and allies want) it's OK for us to undermine his government and supply "moderates" with weaponry to aid in the insurrection. That is a load of bull crap. It's about time we leave these countries alone. We are not wanted and we are not welcome.


#15

Assad's Syrian government is the legitimate government of Syria, but alas, he is not the illegitimate government of the Amerikan Empire, like in so many other countries like the stooges in the Ukraine,Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan among so many others.


#16

Shantiananda, those silly Syrians -- how dare they elect someone who wasn't approved by the USA first. Sheesh -- no gratitude. /s