Home | About | Donate

Russia-Baiting Pushed Trump to Attack Syria—and Increases the Risks of Nuclear Annihilation

The implication of “the leaders are not that crazy” is that the person they’ve been vilifying relentlessly for years (Putin) actually is rational and has a moral compass and, what’s more, that they are banking on that fact. Interesting.

And they really think that Trump is “not that crazy”? That’s certainly not what most liberals have been saying for months.

1 Like

first of all YOU ARE RIGHT!

there is nothing else to orange headed sh!tgibbon BUT to attack places and be a bully until somebody stands up to him. he is literally an empty suit/spoiled manchild with his trophy wife. he is the ugly american personified…it is every worst stereotype about americans as pres. ignorant narcissistic uncultured fat lazy slob spoiled.

he wont need a reason to start WW III other than somebody called him the !gnorant piece of sh!t that he is. well done.

we will be LUCKY to survive don the di!Psh89t. but prob being americans wont even register and will elect another RW top 1% trickle down unqualified piece of sh(*T (*as long as it is a he and caucasian). but don’t call it racism.

he denies basic science but bans entire religions ethnicities b/c of fossil fuel emissions and envir refugee tsunami his ignorance is causing now. great!!! but all posters rationalize hillary would be ‘just as bad’.

not even REMOTELY F(*UCking close. he has done MORE damage to our natl honor prestige future educ jobs healthcare intelligence clean air/food/water in his first three mos. of being ‘so presidential’.right? nobody knew. believe me.

1 Like

The Neocons are in the saddle and they ride mankind. The spectacle of elite “liberals” with their Putin runs America through Trump meme is Kaput. What was never the case is now a dangerous case. What will the broken hearted come up with next, I’ll never watch Maddow again but she is capable of concocting a doosey. In the meantime, the Kaganate of Nuland is back, scarry times lie ahead:


Isis = USA has been evident for some time. Tulsi Garba is putting forward a bill that aiding terrorism is illegal.

1 Like


Nuclear war, both intentional or by accident is a big concern as it has been with each preceding Administration since Eisenhower.

But I hope the author is not arguing to excuse the Kremlin cyber-attack on the 2016 US election to influence the outcome or suggesting the suspension of investigations into a possibly complicit Trump campaign or the Administration’s follow-up ties to Moscow.

Its plausible that the Kremlin and the White House are still colluding to manipulate their own public’s perceptions to obfuscate a mutual political agenda which probably has to do with oil. Those cruise missiles flew over knowing Russian military bases in Syria, in full view of radar and through Russian anti-cruise missile systems to strike a expendable target where Assad had already been warned off.

Trump has only himself to blame if people think he is Putin’s flunky. Go back and look at the statements Trump had made about Putin and Russia and what other conclusion can you draw. It doesn’t take a vast effort to portray Trump that way. All he has to do is open his mouth. People are dumbfounded by his statements and naturally are curious to find explanations. It also doesn’t help that Trump has refused to release his tax returns. In 2015 Romney suggested there is a bombshell in there and what else are we supposed to conclude by Trump’s evasiveness. Just Trump being president increases the risk of nuclear annihilation. Hillary Clinton could not have made that clearer during the election and she ran ads emphasizing the point. Too many people ignored her message and now here are afraid Trump is going to start a nuclear war.

Everyone else in the world knows that the US has only one foreign policy. Voting D or R does not change it. Not ever. We do not live in a democracy as far as foreign policy is concerned. Not even close. You might be able to raise the minimum wage in your town, but you can’t get into that Strangelovian bunker, ever.


Shouldn’t Israel be on this graph? Isn’t it in Israel’s interest to have all its neighbors in perpetual war? Isn’t Israel constantly goading the USA to attack someone in the region? Just wondering.


I see you’re still dishonestly trying to blame the progressives for Trump, when it was the LINOs (liberals in name only) who created and enabled this monster; by hoping against reason that all the warning signs about Clinton were wrong just as they denied the broadly populist, cross-Party support of Sanders.

And just who among such progressives here projected peaceful motives upon Trump? I do recall that some did say his desire for better collaboration with Russia might be better than Clinton’s previously demonstrated hostility; but I never read that as suggesting he had world peace as a motive. Most recognized that it was only a function of his business interests and possibly isolationist tendencies.


There won’t be much gland-handing when the Dumpster finally meets his nematodes. If you thought he looked like he needed to be taking a dump sitting not looking at Myrtle of Germany, things shouldn’t be much better if he tries to lay a line of ‘bolshoi’ on the Russian.

No doubt the Chinese Premier read him chapter and verse on East Asia, China and the US place in it. Putin is just as likely to tell him to fuck right off.

1 Like

Well if Israel is in a state of perpetual war, why should they keep it to themselves. They are very, very generous people, we’ll have you know.

1 Like

I see you still live in fantasy land. Tell Papa Smurf I said hi.


Pretty weak. But par for the course. I won’t be responding to you further.


Excellent. Because you have trouble responding seriously anyway. The fact you can’t even be honest about the fantasyland Putin apologist progressivism we’ve seen a lot of lately tells me all I need to know.


If we are afraid Trump will start a nuclear war it is precisely because he is enacting HRC type policies.


I remember crazy statements here like Clinton would start a nuclear war. That is the height of fear mongering. No president since Truman has used nuclear weapons. Why would anyone believe Hillary Clinton. She is seasoned political person served in the Senate and as Secretary of State and also was first lady for 8 years. Why would such a person without any history of mental problem do something insane like start a nuclear war? It just doesn’t add up to anything but baseless fear mongering.


But Clinton is mentally stable and not impulsive and she understands foreign policy. Trump has none of those attributes and he has been a bully since he was a child. It is not the policies it is the person.

1 Like

I believe the graph only shows groups with troops on the ground in the war.

1 Like

“Starting” a nuclear (or any war) is not necessarily the intention of anyone…not any person we’d generally agree is sane in the general use of the word. But actions -> reactions; and as we’ve seen, war is too often the outcome or unintended consequence of actions that might have been seen at the time by the acting party to be “safe” and/or without consequence.
When one nation sees another as attempting hegemony and/or otherwise threatening their national security, war is not too far away.
Clinton’s belligerence towards Russia was well-documented, whether with respect to Ukraine / Crimea or to Syria, where she pushed for a no-fly zone that many military observers felt would likely lead to a direct conflict / encounter between Russian and American air forces.
Those were the reasons why some people feared she could “start” a nuclear war, as in help create the escalating tensions that would increase the possibility.

While there are always those who oversimplify and use hyperbole in their internet posts (the nature of a sound-bite culture, I’m afraid), the increase in US-Russian tensions associated with Clinton’s policies (and her inner circle of advisers) was a reasonable fear - in my opinion and in the estimate of many more expert in these topics than I. It wasn’t “fear mongering” at all…it was the articulation of very valid concerns based on the evidence.

In contrast, Trump claimed and previously had indicated a desire for a better relationship w/ Russia. Given his nature, I personally was under no illusion that his actions would match his words. However, it’s understandable to me that some people would give him the benefit of the doubt on that one point when the other candidate was clearly and openly hawkish.