Home | About | Donate

When Is Direct Military Intervention Not Direct Military Intervention?


#1

When Is Direct Military Intervention Not Direct Military Intervention?

Jim Naureckas

“President Obama has long refused to approve direct military intervention in Syria,” the New York Times asserted in an editorial (9/29/16) about “Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State.”


#3

To answer the headlines question: When the president says that it isn't and the congress sits on its hands with its mouth shut.
"If the President does it, it's not illegal," to quote Richard Mildew Nixon and Bill Clinton.


#4

Has Hillary said a single word about withdrawing the 10 thousand American troops in Afghanistan, or the 6 thousand American troops in Iraq or ending America's involvement in Syria or our involvement in Libya?


#5

This is dangerous to the point of madness.

Concerned over the possibility of Aleppo falling to Syrian forces a news source reports that the US through its allies will send more arms to the Rebels this including surface to air missiles.

ISIS has no aircraft. Syria and Russia are the only targets.

Added to that the Russian Government was outraged when a US government spokesperson issued what they deemed a direct threat to Russia.

MR Kirby indicated that Syrian Terrorists would target Russian towns and Cities and would use surface to air missiles to attack Russian aircraft.

Given the source of those weapons is the USA , it understandable how Russia sees this as a direct threat to attack Russia.

As far as Russia is concerned this a "we sent them against Assad and will now send them against you" moment.

Meanwhile Duetcshebank in huge trouble and this can trigger a collapse of the Western Banking system.

These are dangerous times and neither Trump or Hilary are in charge yet.


#7

Obama can do his usual duck and dodge but it's an intervention. One of the current essays on the subject is on CDreams right now "How the US Armed Up Jihadists' by Alistair Crooke.
Clearly explains the story behind the intervention.


#8

The "Crazies" are gonna get their war with Russia....and they are going to be surprised that the enemy this time will hit back.........
peace


#9

I agree with you SuspiraDeProfundis. I fear that the end of the world as we know it is near. We don't really have the best military, just the most expensive. Another give away to the rich by "our" government.


#10

From: US State Department John Kirby warns Russia. Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova warns John Kirby

US State Department spokesperson John Kirby told reporters at Wednesday’s press briefing…

“Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft.”

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on Thursday that the US statements on the suspension of cooperation with Russia on Syria amount to blackmail.

“It’s a policy of threats and blackmail, aimed at imposing solutions favorable to US and its clients,” Ryabkov told RIA Novosti. “It’s impossible to reach a settlement and stabilization on such basis. But there’s no winning love by force. We have our own approach and principles,” he added.

U.S. v. Russia - two completely different ideologies... dippy v. diplomatic


#11

That interview with Kirby is priceless watch the expressions of Kirby.The guy absolutely hates that reporter. She tears him to shreds and makes him look like a an incompetent lying dweeb with her sharp questions. His eyes go wide and bug out, his lips go tight and he starts to lick them in frustration.. The ex Admiral is caught and exposed as a forked tongue fraud by a female reporter and he can not handle it.


#12

Today it was announced that we are sending 600 more troops to Iraq. Classical mission creep


#13

Yes. She really had him squirming. Little wonder they hate RT. :relaxed:


#16

I think the missing key word is "Regime Change"

Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame i.e. I won't blame G.W.Bush alone, he is infamously known as a Neocon warmonger who engaged in regime change (Iraq), and so is Obama and Hillary for example:

The rabbit hole deepens --- Suzerainty, proselytization is the harsh reality that I think many people may not be aware of. - Source.

What strikes me with terror is that Neocons engaged in injudicious extremes repeatedly therefore, Neocons will never learn --- it is their trait, they have an agenda. Here's a reality shake up -- they are part of the New World Order - Source.

How many more innocent civilians, terrorist attacks, and American soldiers and allies must die for this New World Order agenda? Obviously the death toll is incalculable. To me, that is a very grave issue.


These elections seem "Orchestrated" to steer the outcome towards a specific goal. Propaganda and dirty tricks such as voter purging has indeed occurred. - Source >> :


Neocons "Regime Change" and the "New World Order" I'm am deeply concerned about this because already there appears to an be awful lot of tension brewing between NATO, the U.S. vs. Russia, China and other countries.

I support Jill Stein 100% because I'm for peace, respect for life and the environment. At this stage according to polls Jill Stein is not likely to win. That won't change my vote -- by 2020 the Green Party should be in a stronger position to win.

I support Jill Stein. Respect for all live and the environment.


#17

And still does now.


#18

“Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State.”

What State is that, please?