Hillary is the Real Loose Cannon

There is now only two weeks to go until the US Presidential Election. The strategy of the Hillary Clinton campaign, assisted by the mainstream media and a fair number of other Republicans has been to paint Donald Trump as a loose cannon who could jeopardize international security. This is based solely on the fact that Trump says mean things and triggers a lot of people, not on his actual policies. It was the line of attack Hillary used in the first debate stating ‘a man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes’. If the allegation is going to be made that Trump saying mean things could result in a nuclear war we should scrutinize the actual foreign policy of both candidates.

Foreign policy should be the biggest issue in the election. This is due to the 5 year civil war in Syria becoming a proxy war between the Russian-backed secular Assad regime against the United States backed Free Syrian Army which is made up of coalition of various political groups including both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The war began as part of the Arab Spring in early 2011 when mass demonstrations led to the fall of many Middle Eastern governments. Seeing these old regimes fall the American neoconservatives soon realized that might be able to revive the policy of nation building and regime change that had fallen out of fashion after the disaster of Iraq. The neoconservatives also felt empowered by the fact it would be easier to sell these policies to the American people under a Democrat President as the anti-war opposition would almost be non-existent.

The first action of the neoconservatives was the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, long considered an unpredictable leader and had been described by Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s as the ‘mad dog’ of the Middle East. However he kept the various ethnic and religious groups together and was also preventing mass migration from Libya coming to Europe. But overall he was considered a bad guy. Obama being a Democrat President was not invading a country in the eyes of the left, he was liberating the Libyan people and carrying out a humanitarian mission. The different reactions of the left to the Iraq invasion and that of Libya showed that they were only cheerleaders for their side of politics no matter what actions they took. Although the invasion had no ground troops a no fly zone was declared, US bombing was carried out and the rebels were armed. Gaddafi was captured and killed in a most undignified way by being sodomized with a stick, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cackled on camera in regard to his death ‘we came, we saw, he died, hahaha’.

The neoconservatives after Libya had a taste for blood and thought they could achieve the same outcome in Syria in removing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and be the heroes in the eyes of the western world once again. It wasn’t as easy as they had hoped, mainly because of the fact that the Russian government under President Vladimir Putin decided because of military, economic and historical ties to Syria they did not want regime change in the country. They also did not see any benefit in undermining a regime which was likely to be replaced by elements of al-Qaeda.

Barack Obama in his second term saw that making regime change happen in Syria was his most important foreign policy goal. Though he backed down on his famous line in the sand when chemical weapons were allegedly used by the Assad regime in early 2013, it was widely seen as a false flag by the rebels to goad US intervention in Syria. That is why Assad gave up all his chemical weapons in the aftermath, most likely because he never used or intended to use them. The plan was going horribly wrong when ISIS broke away from the Free Syrian Army and took over vast parts of Eastern Syria and Western Iraq. The priority now became bombing and retaking ISIS strongholds and regime change was put on the backburner.

The fact that Russia was proving to be more effective in destroying ISIS angered the US neoconservatives who believe only America should be able to influence global politics and did not like Russia’s overall policy goal. They have been able to successful spread the message in the media that Russia was deliberately targeting civilians in an effort to portray the US policy as having the moral high ground. The Syrian army’s efforts to retake the main rebel stronghold in Aleppo has been used as propaganda in the mainstream western news in favor of greater US involvement. Now that ISIS is in retreat the Obama administration has reaffirmed its position that Assad must be removed from power and heightened its rhetoric against Russia’s involvement. Two US brokered ceasefires have collapsed mainly due to both Assad and Russia not trusting the United States to stick to their part of the ceasefire.

This brings us to the two candidate’s positions on both Syria and Russia. While the mainstream media continues to claim that Trump is dangerous because he says mean things and are willing to give airtime to any random woman who claimed Trump touched them, meanwhile Hillary’s dangerous policy positions are not gaining any scrutiny at all. Hillary has stated she supports a no fly zone over Syria which would surely result in Russian jets being shot down while trying to assist the Assad regime. This would result in a military conflict with Russia and could even lead to a possible nuclear war. Hillary shares the mainstream neoconservative hostility to Russia not just over Syria but also over the Russian dispute with Ukraine after Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia.

She has blamed Russia for the WikiLeaks dump of emails first from the Democratic National Committee back in June which exposed that the Democratic leadership was favouring Hillary in the primaries. She has also blamed Russia for the latest WikiLeaks dump of emails this time from her chief of staff. She has accused Russia of engaging in a cyber-attack and claims that the US government should have the same response to a cyber-attack than it would for a military attack. Current Vice President Joe Biden said that the US government is preparing to respond to the alleged Russian involvement in the leak. Hillary is probably more upset that the emails expose her dirty tactics and the different policy positions she has in public and private. Her line of attack however is Russia is trying to unduly influence the outcome of a foreign government’s elections.

It should be asked what is wrong with Russia trying to influence the outcome of the US election, especially if it is only exposing actual things a candidate has said behind closed doors? Russia would prefer not to enter into a war with United States which is why they do not want Hillary to win. Especially since Trump has stated he would like to try and get along with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government and Putin has praised Trump in return. Trump has said that the Ukraine dispute should not involve the United States who are halfway around the world. He has also stated that he does not favour removing Assad in Syria and has praised both Assad and Syria for helping to weaken ISIS. A friend of Putin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, has stated that Trump is the peace candidate, Hillary’s election could lead to nuclear war. Green Party Candidate Jill Stein is a brave progressive refusing to be a cheerleader for Hillary like many commentators has stated that Hillary’s policies could result in a nuclear showdown with Russia.

The mainstream media is completely overlooking the possibility of nuclear conflict under a Clinton Presidency. Only those of us who are following politics closely are aware of this threat and are rightly terrified over what could happen. In Russia they are actually taking the possibility of nuclear war with the US seriously, they have raised their DEFCON warning system to level three. There was also a military drill involving 40 million Russians only a week ago, the Russian government has advised the Russian people to recall any family members living abroad, and the Russia Today bank accounts in the UK were frozen. Russia Today it should be added is the only mainstream news source actually discussing the rising tensions between the two countries.

Voters in the US election should be more concerned with what Hillary Clinton will do as President rather than what mean things or comments about women Donald Trump has made. Trump is the pro-peace candidate this election if you look at both candidate’s policies in detail. Hillary is lifelong neoconservative like her husband and the neoconservatives in Republican Party are the main group who have sabotaged Trump’s campaign. Russia is correct with its strategy in Syria, the US policy is one which will result instability and chaos, not just in Syria but the entire Middle East. Trump may behave like a hot head, but he is the United States best hope for avoiding further and potentially more dangerous military interventions in the world.

 

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3459/the-truth-about-world-war-iii-united-states-vs-russia

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/12/middleeast/syria-ceasefire-explained/

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/03/do-we-really-want-nuclear-war-with-russia/

http://time.com/4512785/us-has-weak-hand-syria-russia-knows-it/

http://www.therebel.media/vote_for_hillary_clinton_vote_for_war_with_russia

http://www.newsweek.com/pence-contradicts-trump-russia-behind-hacks-510468

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/debate-clinton-trump-clash-syrian-war-161010093723691.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835356/Vote-Trump-risk-nuclear-war-Putin-s-ally-warns-Russian-president-s-friend-says-Republican-candidate-person-calm-growing-tensions.html