Jill Stein: a Clinton Presidency could mean nuclear war with Russia

Written By: - Date published: 9:45 am, October 16th, 2016 - 219 comments
Categories: colonialism, defence, Globalisation, International, kremlinology, Syria, us politics, war - Tags:

Edit – Bill suggested that I change the title of this post to more closely reflect what Stein said in her interview

Jill Stein, the US Green Party presidential candidate, is a left wing woman and politician who can see past cheap political smears, irrelevant diversions, and self righteous stigmatising, in order to keep her eye on what is really important in terms of peace, freedom and democracy.

Her comments about Julian Assange as a democratic hero, fell perfectly into this mould.

And just a few days ago Jill Stein did it again, when Real Clear Politics put up a dramatically titled article:

Jill Stein: Trump Is Less Dangerous Than Clinton; She Will Start Nuclear War With Russia

where Stein makes it clear that while she does not like the idea of Donald Trump as POTUS, there are very good reasons to suspect why Hillary’s declared policy position from the second presidential debate of a US enforced Syrian no-fly zone may be very much worse for us and for the entire world:

It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone.

We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been.

Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria.

I sure won’t sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won’t sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies.

On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia.

He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.
A clip of Steins interview with C Span is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OGPuqLe3mg

In this context, it is an enforced area over all or some of Syria where Syrian Government aircraft and Russian aircraft will be forbidden to fly, but where US/western allied aircraft will have complete air superiority and full freedom to conduct whatever missions they please.

This doesn’t sound so bad until you examine the examples of no-fly zones previously established over Iraq and Libya: in Syria it would require the suppression of most (or ideally all) threatening or potentially threatening Russian and Syrian ground to air defence systems, including radar and missile installations, air bases and air fields, aircraft and hangars which could be used to oppose the activities of US/western aircraft.

In the process, the deaths of hundreds of Syrian and Russian military personnel could be taken for granted. Even the US Chair of the Joint Chiefs General Dunford recently told a House Committee that the actions required to establish a no-fly zone over Syria would be an act of war against Syria and Russia – and that he was not prepared to make such a decision (warning clip is from Alex Jones’ Info Wars):

Earlier in October, Russia also clearly warned about any such actions, saying that with their new S300 and S400 air defence systems installed in Syria, western illusions about the utility of “invisible [i.e. stealth] aircraft” will “face a disappointing reality.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ0cTxABUY8

A reminder to all that Russian armed forces are operating in Syria legally under international law at the invitation of the Damascus government (and approved by the Russian parliament in Moscow), while the US, French, UK, etc. are all operating in Syria uninvited, illegally, as aggressor nations.

My thanks go to politicians like Stein who can ignore the tabloid level noise and tabloid level smears surrounding Donald Trump and instead cut through to the heart of what it means to elect a dangerous warmonger like Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office.

219 comments on “Jill Stein: a Clinton Presidency could mean nuclear war with Russia ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tamati Tautuhi 1
    16 October 2016 at 10:07 am

    Jill Stein is an intelligent woman who can see past the war hawk Hillary Clinton and the bully boys of the US military establishment?

    The two party US system is archaic and horribly flawed when the USA’s two best candidates are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

    • red-blooded 1.1
      16 October 2016 at 4:12 pm

      Jill Stein is a political candidate who’s talking down a political opponent.

      She’s not an expert in foreign policy, has never been a diplomat or served in government. She’s got her own perspective and her own motivations, but she’s not got divine insight.

  2. Bill 2
    16 October 2016 at 10:11 am

    Jill Stein’s statement is qualified. Y’know, that word “could”. Jill Stein did not say a vote for Clinton means air war with Russia. What Jill Stein highlighted – not that it needed highlighting – was that Clinton is a hawk.

    And yes, that’s a cause for genuine concern and discussion and why it would be nice if the broader left in the US was mobilised from day one so that Clinton was back-footed and on the defensive.

    It’s not a reason to dress up opinions and stridently present them as fact though.

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      16 October 2016 at 10:13 am

      Clinton declared at the second presidential debate that under her administration the US would enforce a no-fly zone over Syria.

      So is there a doubt to what needs to be done to create such a no fly zone? General Dunford seems clear on it.

      He also seems clear on what the outcome would be: war with Syria and Russia.

      • weka 2.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 10:17 am

        Are you arguing your points or Steins? You seem to be getting them confused.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 10:21 am

          😆

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2
          16 October 2016 at 11:07 am

          Hi weka, if you’ve got anything of use to advance discussion on this post you are very welcome to contribute. If you’re here just to snipe at me, please feel free to go write your own post on Clinton and Syria.

          • weka 2.1.1.2.1
            16 October 2016 at 11:34 am

            Snipe aside, it does seem a pertinent question, but I think Stephanie addressed it better below.

          • Observer Tokoroa 2.1.1.2.2
            17 October 2016 at 11:31 am

            ..
            . Concerning Miss Stein
            .
            Do you think I should drop Stein a line and get her to put Dolly Parton in as a substitute for the intelligent and knowledgeable Hillary Clinton.

            Or should I suggest Mrs Putin ?

            In other words why don’t you take your foot off Hillary’s neck CV and Ms Stein. You and Stein are so superior. It sickens me.

            As does your denigration of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. You are superior to them. They are just low life to you. Think about it.

            .
            .

      • Psycho Milt 2.1.2
        16 October 2016 at 10:29 am

        Clinton declared at the second presidential debate that under her administration the US would enforce a no-fly zone over Syria.

        Big whoop. Obama was going to close Guantanamo and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. W was going to get the US to stop interfering with other countries(!). John Key was going to do something about NZ’s underclass (other than increasing its size, I mean). Politicians make all kinds of big promises in an election campaign that they’re never going to be able to keep, your man Trump being one of the more extreme examples.

      • dukeofurl 2.1.3
        16 October 2016 at 1:08 pm

        And the other words were:
        “when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them.”

        Clinton was talking diplomacy not a no fly zone to win a war.

        So she was talking no fly as a means of diplomatic leverage. To be honest Putin doesnt care too much about Syria and Assad.
        hes doing this as leverage about Ukriane, which matters deeply to Russia, as they have millions of ethnic Russians involved.

        • RedLogix 2.1.3.1
          16 October 2016 at 1:19 pm

          And there lies the core of Clinton’s thinking. Right here she is framing the Russian’s as an enemy to be negotiated with; as an implacable, obdurate foe that has to be ‘leveraged’ into submission.

          • Olwyn 2.1.3.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 2:33 pm

            Moreover, the current US power-brokers do not seem to understand negotiation in terms of give-and-take. Their idea is, first you ask nicely, then you put the hard word on them, then you beat them into submission. The idea of the US not getting it all their own way apart perhaps from a small amount of face-saving window-dressing seems unthinkable to them.

        • mikesh 2.1.3.2
          16 October 2016 at 2:17 pm

          “hes doing this as leverage about Ukriane, which matters deeply to Russia, as they have millions of ethnic Russians involved.”

          I don’t actually believe that. Do you have anything you can point to as evidence?

          • Colonial Viper 2.1.3.2.1
            16 October 2016 at 2:27 pm

            There are many reasons why Russia is in Syria. But IMO the main one is to destroy the forces of Islamic terrorism that the west is hoping to use against Russia yet again (think Dagestan, Chechnya, Afghanistan).

            Russia has a massive and fast growing Muslim population. And thousands of Russian citizens from its troubled Caucases region have joined up to fight with ISIS/ISIL.

            Russia’s burgeoning ISIL problem

            Moscow, Russia – With plunging oil prices, economic sanctions, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and a weakening ruble, the Russian government already had a lot to worry about.

            Now ISIL has joined this list of concerns. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has released videos with threats to liberate Chechnya and the broader North Caucasus region, and Russia is waging an online war against the group.

            “We will 
 liberate Chechnya and the Caucasus, Allah willing. The Islamic State is here to stay,” said an ISIL fighter in the first such video, released on August 31.

            Tanya Lokshina, Human Rights Watch’s Russia programme director, said there is “definitely [ISIL] recruitment happening” in Russia.

            http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/12/russia-burgeoning-isil-problem-20141297415936963.html?src=ilaw

    • weka 2.2
      16 October 2016 at 10:19 am

      +1,000 Bill

      Also, in the video Stein is clearly campaigning to get Clinton voters to switch to her. Context.

      And yes, that’s a cause for genuine concern and discussion and why it would be nice if the broader left in the US was mobilised from day one so that Clinton was back-footed and on the defensive.

      It’s a damn shame that that’s not what the primary discussion is on ts.

  3. Chooky 3
    16 October 2016 at 10:16 am

    +100 CV…Important Post

    Stein is supported by others in this analysis of Clinton as a dangerous warmonger:

    ‘ If elected president, Hillary Clinton plan for Syrian no-fly zone could trigger WWIII’ ‘

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/362872-exceptionalism-hillary-clinton-america/

    “Talking about America’s exceptionalism, Clinton is trying to provide a rationale and an argument for US hegemony and domination of the world, says Gerald Horne, author and historian.

    In an attempt to offer voters a different perspective on the United States than her Republican challenger, Donald Trump, who is pushing an “America First” platform, Clinton this week promoted the idea of the United States as the “exceptional” nation in the world.

    “If there’s one core belief that has guided and inspired me every step of the way, it is this: The United States is an exceptional nation,” Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, told a meeting of the American Legion’s national convention…

    Trump also views Hillary Clinton’s health as a danger for President decision making

    ‘ ‘She’s getting pumped up’: Trump calls for drug tests before next debate (VIDEO)’

    https://www.rt.com/usa/362908-trump-drug-tests-debate/

    • dukeofurl 3.1
      16 October 2016 at 1:10 pm

      Chooky, CV getting his talking points from RT isnt going to bring peace to Syria.

      A war that the US has a big involvement in prolonging by the war. A new President can give a new direction and leave Obama’s secret war-making behind.

    • Gabby 3.2
      16 October 2016 at 1:15 pm

      What drugs does ‘Sniffy’ Trump want the tests to cover, I wonder.

  4. Morrissey 4
    16 October 2016 at 10:23 am

    Hillary Clinton would be in jail if there was anything like a serious commitment to justice in the United States. And Donald Trump would not be able to attend a school camp in this country as he would certainly not pass the police vetting procedure.

    Thank God our politicians are not as dismal….

    http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Pants-on-fire.jpg

    https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1397090092/134/9926134.jpg

  5. Psycho Milt 5
    16 October 2016 at 10:24 am

    We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been.

    Jill Stein looks to be around as old as I am, in which case she’ll remember when there was an actual risk of nuclear war, as opposed to the ones made up for rhetorical purposes. She should lower the bullshit level of her speeches.

    A reminder to all that Russian armed forces are operating in Syria legally under international law at the invitation of the Damascus government…

    And a reminder to all that US armed forces were operating in South Vietnam in the 1960s legally under international law at the invitation of the Saigon government, and that Soviet armed forces iwere operating in Afghanistan in the 1980s legally under international law at the invitation of the Kabul government. Those operations, like the current Russian operations in Syria, were not good things for the people of those countries.

    • RedLogix 5.1
      16 October 2016 at 10:34 am

      And a reminder to all that US armed forces were operating in South Vietnam in the 1960s legally under international law at the invitation of the Saigon government

      True, but imagine if the Chinese govt (and given their limited military capacity of the day I accept this has to be a hypothetical) … had attempted to impose a ‘no fly zone’ on the American’s over North Vietnam.

      A much less attractive prospect no?

      • Tamati Tautuhi 5.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 10:45 am

        Were the US Government, Dow Corporation or Monsanto ever prosecuted for spraying chemical weapons on the Vietnamese people and did they pay reparations to the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, who have long term genetic and on going health issues from their chemical spraying programs?

      • Psycho Milt 5.1.2
        16 October 2016 at 1:10 pm

        …imagine if the Chinese govt 
 had attempted to impose a ‘no fly zone’ on the American’s over North Vietnam.

        Yes, let’s. Suppose a senior figure in the Chinese leadership back in 1967 had declared that China would aim to impose a no-fly zone over Vietnam. The following would have occurred:

        1. Leftists all over the world would have been heaping praise on communist China’s appalling, murderous leaders for their willingness to try and help the Vietnamese civilians who were being killed or maimed by the US air force.

        2. It would have been clear to international observers that the practicalities of imposing a no-fly zone on a country with a powerful air force and advanced air defence capability pose insurmountable problems, and that the statement was most likely just bellicose political rhetoric for domestic consumption.

        3. No-one (with the probable exception of US government spokesmen) would have declared the Chinese to be risking a nuclear war.

        • RedLogix 5.1.2.1
          16 October 2016 at 1:36 pm

          1. Oh good, so you can recognise a fake ‘humanitarian’ justification for military intervention when you see one.

          2. I did propose it as an imaginary hypothetical given China’s limited military capacity of 1960’s , but if that is too hard for you, let’s imagine the current Chinese govt deciding to impose a ‘no sail zone’ in their South China Sea economic zone.

          3. So President Clinton imposes her ‘no fly zone’ in Syria to get the leverage she’s looking for. And then some Russian fighters get shot down, and then supersonic cruise missiles sink some US Navy ships, and then … yeah nah no risk of nuclear war at all.

          • Psycho Milt 5.1.2.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 3:21 pm

            Re 2, I was sticking with your hypothetical of China having the military capacity to contemplate trying to force a no-fly zone. The problems would still be insurmountable, whether we’re talking about a hypothetical back then or the one being proposed for Clinton. In short, “How?” You want to make a powerful air force stop flying – how do you achieve that?

            One way is a surprise attack that catches the aircraft on the ground (worked a treat for the Jerries on the first day of Barbarossa). Not feasible in this case though.

            Another way is to intimidate the opposing leadership into keeping its air force on the ground by making serious and convincing threats. But could anyone really picture Putin being intimidated into accepting a no-fly zone? That one’s also a non-starter.

            Another way would be to use your own air force and anti-aircraft weaponry to shoot down the opposing aircraft. That’s effective as long as your weaponry and personnel are overwhelmingly superior to the enemy’s (as per the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq), but if the other side’s weaponry and personnel are as good as your own, it’s not going to work. Your own air force will take as much damage as the enemy’s. Only a complete imbecile would try this one, and Clinton isn’t.

    • Garibaldi 5.2
      16 October 2016 at 12:35 pm

      Come on Psycho Milt, you don’t think that puppet bunch of muppets known as the South Vietnamese Govt. was kosher do you? I suppose you still hold to the Gulf of Tonkin incident as being another American truism.
      Also do you honestly believe the Americans have been doing sterling work in Syria over the last 2+ years with their rag tag bunch of “freedom Fighters”?
      If your answer to both these questions is “yes” then I would say your version of history is wrong, despite your experiences.

      • Psycho Milt 5.2.1
        16 October 2016 at 1:18 pm

        Come on Psycho Milt, you don’t think that puppet bunch of muppets known as the South Vietnamese Govt. was kosher do you?

        I don’t. It was a puppet government that could remain in existence only because the US government wished it to. Is that ringing any bells re a current puppet government and its patron? One that is mentioned in the OP? Because that’s the whole point of my analogy.

        Also do you honestly believe the Americans have been doing sterling work in Syria over the last 2+ years with their rag tag bunch of “freedom Fighters”?

        Nope. But at least they’re not carrying out mass murder of civilians on a grand scale, which is more than you can say for Putin and his puppet Assad. In this fight, the Americans have for once kept their hands off – the result hasn’t been notably better than when they go hands-on, but at least this time it’s not them who’s to blame for all the dead bodies lying about.

        • Paul 5.2.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 1:26 pm

          “Next year, it will be a century since Wilfred Owen wrote the following. Every journalist should read it and remember it.

          If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
          Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
          Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
          Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
          My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
          To children ardent for some desperate glory,
          The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
          Pro patria mori. ”

          Psycho Milt, you speak with such high zest.

          • Psycho Milt 5.2.1.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 1:31 pm

            I’m not a journalist, but I’ve been familiar with that poem since high school. Are you quoting it with the aim of making some point that’s too obscure to figure out, or is it just spam?

        • mikesh 5.2.1.2
          16 October 2016 at 2:46 pm

          I think Assad would have been capable of defending his regime against its Syrian insurgents. But unfortunately he has had to fight against ISIS, an outside force backed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and probably the US.

          • Psycho Milt 5.2.1.2.1
            16 October 2016 at 3:04 pm

            In 2012 Assad was on the ropes – his army was deserting and senior officials starting to look for exit strategies. That was due to ordinary Syrians, not Da’esh. His government continues in existence only because Russia and Iran decided to protect him (and by “him” I mean their interests in the region).

    • JonL 5.3
      17 October 2016 at 1:58 pm

      Just like anything the US is involved in is certainly not a good thing for the people of those countries!

  6. Tamati Tautuhi 6
    16 October 2016 at 10:27 am

    I think the USA has lost it’s way in the world and wants to dictate to the rest of the world how things are going to be, they have history, in South America, Cuba, Vietnam, and the Middle East, their foreign policy record does not make pretty reading?

    The TPPA Agreement is just another shining example of their desire for one world domination?

  7. Stuart Munro 7
    16 October 2016 at 10:36 am

    Someone is going to have to draw a line in the sand for Putin eventually – his expansionism won’t be halted in the security council. If Obama were not leaving office shortly it would probably have happened already, and all the pretenders would be seeing what it looks like when America really does want a confrontation instead of low-level attrition.

    Well may Russia rattle its nuclear sabers – it will not enjoy the conventional force advantage it used to invade and oppress Chechnya, Ingushetia, Georgia and the Ukraine.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      16 October 2016 at 10:45 am

      Someone is going to have to draw a line in the sand for Putin eventually – his expansionism won’t be halted in the security council.

      Damned shame how Putin keeps moving the borders of Russia closer and closer to those new NATO bases!

      Or wait – if you paid attention it’s actually the other way around. NATO bases are now hundreds of miles closer to Russia than 20 years ago.

      • Stuart Munro 7.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 10:56 am

        Well of course.

        No-one who lived under the Soviet heel wants the Russians back in any capacity. The only way Russia can be locally popular is to replace whole populations as they did in the Crimea. Or ‘cleanse’ them as they did in Chechnya.

        Russia does not respect the democratic decisions of local populations anyway, so countries like Poland want the NATO shield. Why wouldn’t they?

        And of course Russia is not expanding – Putin is merely liberating the oppressed Russians in Syria.

        As the confrontation escalates the US is likely to conclude that Syria is a good place to resolve the issue – neither Russia nor the US care a fig for an arabic population.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 11:04 am

          So you’re clear that it is NATO which has been expanding towards Russia? Which is in clear contrast to your bullshit that an expansionist Russia threatens the west.

          • Stuart Munro 7.1.1.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 11:17 am

            Expanionist Russia threatens its former client states. They do not wish to be client states again. Putin is a one-trick militarist, he cannot expand peacefully but is perfectly happy to do so by force.

            He’s perfectly happy to prop up a puppet – a ‘life president’ in Syria because he himself has illegally extended his term.

            You can’t have it both ways CV:

            This nuclear war with Russia you’re peddling – whose missiles are starting it?
            It is Russia’s of course, because they rely on that threat to protect their conventional forces in foreign fields. It’s not the US that has been warming up its silos.

            So yes, Russia threatens the west. Threat of military force is the only trick they’ve got.

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 11:27 am

              Expanionist Russia threatens its former client states. They do not wish to be client states again.

              As far as I can see, Russia has zero interest in being in charge of, and responsible for, the problems of struggling, economic backward, indebted NATO client states like the Baltic states.

              Russia is massive enough and troubled enough that it doesn’t need or want more problems like this.

              He’s perfectly happy to prop up a puppet – a ‘life president’ in Syria because he himself has illegally extended his term.

              Syria is an independent, sovereign nation. You forget the main reason Russia now has a major military presence there is by the invitation of the Damascus government, after many years of western destabilisation and infiltration of western/NATO backed jihadist proxies.

              BTW, don’t talk about legalities when the west only cares about such things when it suits itself. The US, UK and France are all illegally operating their militaries on and over Syrian soil right now.

              • Stuart Munro …
                16 October 2016 at 11:44 am

                Syria is an ‘independent sovereign nation’ so badly administered it makes the impoverished Baltic states look like utopias.

                Its ‘president’ is the child of a military dictator who held power for thirty years and has held one deeply compromised election. He is Kim Jong Il with a better haircut but without the patrimony of heroic resistance.

                I don’t approve of bombing civilians or of military dictators.

                Assad has failed ‘resposibility to protect’ – he has no legitimacy and thus his ‘legality’ has no force.

                “As far as I can see, Russia has zero interest in…” You are comparatively unaffected by Russian aggression. The citizens of former soviet clients – the survivors of that occupation – have long memories of Russian brutality and squalid, corrupt, dysfunctional administration.

                You raised the legalities – I merely point out that Assad’s pretensions to legality are no better than his opponents’.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  16 October 2016 at 11:52 am

                  You raised the legalities – I merely point out that Assad’s pretensions to legality are no better than his opponents’.

                  Assad’s opponents? These are foreign funded, head chopping, pilot burning, deserter drowning, minority raping jihadists who have killed 200,000 to 300,000 Syrian civilians thus far.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    16 October 2016 at 12:03 pm

                    Oh really.

                    Assad is such an asshole he has a vast rich community of enemies.

                    Jihadist is such a childish label in a majority religious country where extremity brings blessings and curses to every tongue.

                    Perhaps you mean ISIL? But ISIL is or was predominantly not foreign funded – that was the secret of their success. They got half a billion out of Mosul – far more than any of their predecessors ever wheedled from the deeply tribal southern Saudi conservatives.

                    The Arab spring resisters were never ISIL at all – they were the honest demos – the long overdue civil society backlash against Assad’s murderous regime.

                    By confusing the two, Assad means to continue his vile satrapy. And Putin is delighted to oblige him.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 October 2016 at 12:11 pm

                      Perhaps you mean ISIL? But ISIL is or was predominantly not foreign funded – that was the secret of their success. They got half a billion out of Mosul

                      How exactly did they get “half a billion” out of Mosul? Was it in dump trucks or was it by international wire transfer?

                      Did you not see the lines of hundreds of oil tankers lined up in ISIS territory waiting to cross the border into Turkey?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      16 October 2016 at 12:23 pm

                      I’d’ve thought you’d have known such basic stuff.

                      http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mosul-seized-jihadis-loot-429m-citys-central-bank-make-isis-worlds-richest-terror-force-1452190

                      It’s on wikipedia or the Telegraph if you prefer.

                      I wonder if you’re aware of the role of TE Lawrence’s campaign on irregular forces in the region? They expect to self fund to a large degree.

                    • Garibaldi …
                      16 October 2016 at 12:48 pm

                      Keep it up CV . Sorry Stuart, I usually like your comments but your total bias against Russia is unwarranted. It is the West that is the aggressor. If the West wants to take Russia then I hope they have heard about Napolean and Hitler !! Seriously though, the only way they could “succeed” is nuclear . It is time the West gave up it’s crazy plan to take over Syria, Iran, and Russia, and started to realize that we don’t all want to be a bunch of jerks like the “American Dream ‘ has produced.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      16 October 2016 at 12:55 pm

                      Garibaldi – I’d advise you do some research on Putin – and RT would not be the best place to do it.

                    • One Two []
                      16 October 2016 at 1:26 pm

                      Stuart you appear to be misinformed, underinformed or deliberately misleading

                      Which is it?

                      PNAC (are you aware of who/what that is) stated what the intention for US foreign policy would be

                      Retired 4 star General Wesley Clark then essentially confirmed the intent of the foreign policy to invade and occupy ME nations

                      “We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”

                      Basic information Stuart….

                    • Paul …
                      16 October 2016 at 1:01 pm

                      Your sources Stuart?
                      The New York Times at a guess?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      16 October 2016 at 1:36 pm

                      You cannot access my sources without an introduction – though if you do a little searching you may find some of your own.

                      You should able to find the story that showed massive vote-rigging in Putin’s first election – it won an investigative journalism prize after all – but conversing with the people who have boxes of partially destroyed ballots under their bed is probably more convincing.

                      This book is one of the better ones on Chechnya https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Chechnya-Tragedy-Civilians-Humanity/dp/0691162042 Though, again, talking with Chechen rape survivors is apt to be more convincing.

                      I could probably tell you things about the Moscow Theatre and Beslan and Ingushetia were you disposed to hear it.

                    • RedLogix …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:58 pm

                      So Vladimir Putin compares badly with say … the sainted Norm Kirk. I think everyone here would buy that.

                      Now compare him with every other Russian leader since Ivan the Great. Suddenly not so bad after all.

                      Now which comparison do you think is most relevant to the Russian people?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 October 2016 at 4:06 pm

                      When he took over in 1998 Putin began the turn around of a nation which was economically crippled, whose citizens life expectancy and income was falling through the floor, and a nation on the verge of military insurrection, breaking apart and being balkanized.

                      His methods may have been at times distasteful, but from those bleak times Russia is now re-emerging as a Eurasian power.

                      So as a sovereign leader – even without taking into account his sky high popularity ratings – Putin clearly passes muster.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      16 October 2016 at 5:43 pm

                      “Now compare (Putin) with every other Russian leader since Ivan the Great. Suddenly not so bad after all.”

                      Gorbachov was the real thing – Primorye remembers.

                    • TheExtremist …
                      16 October 2016 at 8:30 pm

                      “His methods may have been at times distasteful, but from those bleak times Russia is now re-emerging as a Eurasian power.

                      So as a sovereign leader – even without taking into account his sky high popularity ratings – Putin clearly passes muster.”

                      Jailing opponents
                      Criminalizing homosexuality
                      Conducting assassinations of opponents
                      Shutting down free press
                      Institutionalizing corruption

                      “His methods may have been at times distasteful”

                      At all times. Sickening how authoritarian you have become.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 October 2016 at 8:36 pm

                      Sorry TheExtremist, not only do I disagree with you and your talking points, but so do around 80% of Russian citizens – and it is their country and it is their leader so they get to choose.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      16 October 2016 at 8:53 pm

                      Unhappily, the Russian people do not get to choose.

                      Journalists are slain.

                      Progressives are imprisoned.

                      Opposition parties – however weak – have their leaders assassinated. The elections are a farce and Putin has made a small amendment to term limits (Where they once read 5 years, they now read 50 years.)

                      Indeed Russians should get to choose – but instead they have the choice of a vile and murderous tyrant, or emigration.

                      No progressive can support Putin. Not at all.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 October 2016 at 9:01 pm

                      Progressive/liberals/pro US Atlanticists can’t even muster 5% in Russian elections.

                      And for good reason. This is not a surprise, because the last few years has educated Russia that the west cannot be trusted to keep its word on a single thing: everything from the US sponsored soft coup in Ukraine to the banning of Russia from the Olympics to US/NATO tacitly supporting the Islamist takeover of Syria.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      17 October 2016 at 2:15 am

                      “Progressive/liberals/pro US Atlanticists can’t even muster 5% in Russian elections.”

                      Hardly surprising – there is a single party state without the rule of law. For comparison, third parties in the US perform in a similar band. The system will not allow them to win. Add in the murders of Russian progressives and journalists and 5% is a strong showing. But Stalin’s was stronger than Putins – his commissars were everywhere – does this render him more legitimate? I think not.

            • mikesh 7.1.1.1.1.2
              16 October 2016 at 3:01 pm

              “He’s perfectly happy to prop up a puppet – a ‘life president’ in Syria because he himself has illegally extended his term.”

              Russia and Syria are long term allies. Why would Russia not be willing to assist an ally when it is being invaded by an outside force, and when its government has asked for that assistance?

              • Stuart Munro …
                16 October 2016 at 3:29 pm

                Russia and Syria are not long term allies.

                There is no history in their association – it affords Russia access to the middle east and Assad a friendly power to protect him from the people he and his father oppressed.

                The citizens of Aleppo are not invading. They grew up there, and Putin kills them there.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  16 October 2016 at 3:44 pm

                  Russia and Syria are not long term allies.

                  There is no history in their association

                  Not quite.

                  The Soviet Union and Syria worked closely together in the 50s, 60s and 70s, particularly in economic and military spheres.

                  The USSR established its naval servicing facility at Tartus in Syria in 1971, and today it is being expanded into a full scale military base.

                  The relationship between the two countries became strained in the 80s over issues to do with Lebanon and other factors. In the 1990s Russia was in too much trouble itself to worry about Syria.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    16 October 2016 at 5:48 pm

                    Yes – but both Russia and the US worked with a number of powers in the region including Iran and Iraq. They do not now. There is neither a strong relationship nor a compelling regional logic behind their relationship. If Putin were to receive his richly deserved comeuppance the Syrian tears would be few and far between.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  16 October 2016 at 3:46 pm

                  The citizens of Aleppo are not invading. They grew up there, and Putin kills them there.

                  You are aware that 3/4 of Aleppo is actually under Syrian government or YPG control, right?

                  And that the Islamic terrorists (primarily al-Nusra aka Al Qaeda) in the rebel held sector frequently shell civilians in the other parts of the city causing both damage and death.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    16 October 2016 at 5:51 pm

                    So what you are saying is that Syrian government forces have bombed Aleppo and occupy the rubble where the citizens once lived. Sounds almost like an invasion.

            • JonL 7.1.1.1.1.3
              17 October 2016 at 2:12 pm

              Stuart Munro – you’re a closed eye idiot.
              Not the US that’s been warming up it’s silos? The US congress has voted a Trillion dollars to build newer, better, smarter, nuclear weapons and declared a nuclear war “winnable”!
              Russia “invited” the US to try and ring it’s borders with military installations? Putin a one trick militarist? – you’re still living in the 70’s and 80’s. Putin has enough on his plate rebuilding Russia after it was devastated by Free market policies in the 90’s and not giving in to US and NATO threats.
              The US and Saudi Arabia are quite happy to supply their own propped up puppet in Syria, to replace the current elected President, who will let them build a gas pipeline from Yemen to Europe – whoops, sounds a bit like Ukraine, doesn’t it!
              Russia threatens the west, because it won’t do what it’s told, pure and simple! (just like China, Iran, & Nth Korea) Libya wouldn’t “do what it was told…Iraq wouldn’t “do what it was told”….Yugoslavia (Serbia in particular) was likely to not “do what it was told”, Syria wouldn’t “do what it was told”……see a pattern here…..

              • Stuart Munro …
                17 October 2016 at 3:22 pm

                You clearly are another tragic RT dupe.

                Putin is a monster – a tyrant who runs a single party state and murders all opposition. If you knew a fraction of his record you could not support him.

                Do some actual research – don’t buy this cheap RT bullshit.

                Talk to some Chechens. Talk to Russian emigres. Talk to some actual journalists rather than talking heads. Talk to some Syrians and some Saudis and some Jordanians and some Egyptians.

                You clearly haven’t – which makes you, like CV, a ready dupe for the sophisticated propaganda offensive Putin has been mounting.

                Think for a moment about what you have been saying:

                “…to replace the current elected President, who will let them build a gas pipeline from Yemen to Europe…”

                The gulf states have no urgent need to build pipelines to Europe, nor does America. They’ve never had one, they can export all they want by sea. The urgency is Russia’s. Russia has been using its petrochemical assets like a big stick in Europe, and a pipeline to the gulf would lock them out until their attitude improves (forever). It is much more critical for Russia to prevent this than for the others to make it happen. So this is Russia’s interest in Syria – the preservation of a petrochemical monopoly. The civilians in Aleppo are merely collatoral damage to them.

    • Paul 7.2
      16 October 2016 at 12:37 pm

      Putin’s expansionism?
      Where?

      • Tamati Tautuhi 7.2.1
        16 October 2016 at 1:33 pm

        So the USA is not involved in global expansion?

        It’s amazing what rose tinted glasses and a glass of fine champagne can do to ones thinking, I don’t think people on this thread are saying Putin is an angel, however many of us here In NZ do not believe the USA oligarchs and military are angels either, why was ISIS allowed to sell the stolen oil to Turkey? Those tankers should have been taken out?

        • Paul 7.2.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 1:38 pm

          I agree with you.
          Putin is no angel.
          But US is the provocateur here, expanding its interests in Eastern Europe and creating havoc in Libya, Iraq and Syria.
          And many on this site fall for the propaganda.

        • Stuart Munro 7.2.1.2
          16 October 2016 at 2:01 pm

          The oil sales are easily explained.

          There are a variety of paramilitary forces operating in the destabilised areas of Iraq and Syria. Some are US clients, but most are not. Some are neutrals like the large Shia militia factions that have proven unexpectedly influential on post-invasion Iraqi politics. Many may not have been political at all. These were tolerated or ignored – and used as sources of information by occupying forces.

          ISIS was unexpected – the product of the break up of the Iraqi regular army included groups of highly trained and educated career soldiers who were capable of imagining a campaign instead of a series of unrelated skirmishes. They went after key resources like money and materiale that enabled them to take Mosul. But such victories required an expanding front, and they could not overcome large forces with close air support – they concentrated on extracting wealth from things like the Palmyran antiquities and ultimately oil.

          They were one of many groups in the informal oil game, but rapidly expanded to become one of the largest players. So oil was not particularly jihadist at first, and some informal agreements with paramilitary groups may even have licensed the trade.

  8. Stephanie Rodgers 8
    16 October 2016 at 10:42 am

    Jill Stein, the US Green Party presidential candidate, is a left wing woman and politician who can see past cheap political smears, irrelevant diversions, and self righteous stigmatising, in order to keep her eye on what is really important in terms of peace, freedom and democracy.

    It would be quicker to just say “LOOK! A woman agrees with me! A REAL LIVE WOMAN! You feminists better stop criticising me now, because I found a WOMAN who says you’re WRONG!!!!”

    I may disagree with Jill Stein on a number of things, but I’m sad to see her constantly used as a meat-shield by men who think her gender acts as some kind of trump card.

    [I’d ask you to not refer to Jill Stein as a piece of meat (or a “meat-shield” as you so tastefully put it) thanks Stephanie. Stein has her own politics which you can disagree with, but she also has her own agency and her own voice which you need to respect. The views in her interview linked to on Clinton’s dangerous position with regards to a no-fly zone are very clear, as were her previous views on Julian Assange as a hero. CV]

    • weka 8.1
      16 October 2016 at 10:48 am

      This.

      And ditto using green politics.

    • Chooky 8.2
      16 October 2016 at 11:43 am

      +100 CV…well said!

      • red-blooded 8.2.1
        16 October 2016 at 4:27 pm

        Chooky – has CV ever said ANYTHING that you wouldn’t give 100%+ to?

        A genuine question: you seem to be a pretty devoted fan!

        • Chooky 8.2.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 9:00 pm

          answer to that is yes

          …we have had disagreements( in some cases strong ones)…there are issues I dont comment on and issues I bring up which CV doesnt comment on
          …and we have areas of strong agreement…this is one of them

        • Chooky 8.2.1.2
          16 October 2016 at 9:18 pm

          re “pretty devoted fan!”…anyone who knows me, knows I make up my own mind and form my own opinions

          (and obviously you haven’t been reading my comments, because you would know I can usually back them up)

          To put it mildly I also find it pretty insulting , disrespectful and demeaning to Jill Stein that she is referred to as a “meat- shield” …this sort of talk also came out when she defended Julian Assange

          it is low life, macho, sexist and repugnant talk

    • Sabine 8.4
      16 October 2016 at 7:47 pm

      well said.

    • McFlock 8.5
      17 October 2016 at 10:20 am

      Nice one, Stephanie.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 8.6
      17 October 2016 at 11:01 am

      You know very well the difference between saying “you’re using this woman as a meat-shield” and calling her “a piece of meat”, CV.

      Thanks for proving my point, because once again you’re exploiting Jill Stein’s politics to bully other women into not disagreeing with you, by implying they are the sexist ones.

      • Chris 8.6.1
        17 October 2016 at 5:55 pm

        If CV had simply said:

        “Jill Stein, the US Green Party presidential candidate, is a left wing politician who can see past cheap political smears, irrelevant diversions, and self righteous stigmatising, in order to keep her eye on what is really important in terms of peace, freedom and democracy”.

        Would that have been okay?

  9. joe90 9
    16 October 2016 at 10:44 am

    Jill Stein, nah.

    /

    Dear Dr. Stein,

    We are writing to you in the spirit of green values and principles, which include fighting for a sustainable future, defending the environment and human rights, and engaging in international solidarity. We are also writing to you as eco-activists, women and mothers.

    In November of this year, you will face an important challenge which will have an impact all over the world, even far away from US borders. As Russian eco-activists, we are following the US presidential election with curiosity and fear. Curiosity for your democratic system and fear for the impact that the result of this election could have on our lives and the lives of our children.

    As environmentalists and human rights defenders, we often support Green candidates all over the world when they run for local, national or continental election. However, we are asking ourselves if we can support your candidature for the Presidency of the United States of America. We have carefully read your program and your website and we have to admit that we are deeply shocked by the position you expressed during your visit to Moscow and your meeting with Mr. Vladimir Putin.

    During the last few years, Russian authorities have continued the destruction of the rich and unique Russian environment. The Kremlin is heavily contributing to global climate change and the destruction of global biodiversity by over-using Russian natural resources and promoting unsafe nuclear energy. Corruption and anti-democratic behavior of the current Russian government has also led to negative impacts on Russia’s unique forests and natural heritage. Russian eco-activists and human rights defenders are also facing an increasingly repressive system which was constructed under Putin’s regime. The list of the victims of this system is unfortunately becoming longer and longer. Russian environmentalist Yevgeniy Vitishko spent 22 months in prison for a non-violent action. Journalist Mikhail Beketov was violently attacked in 2008, suffered serious injuries, and died in 2013. Our personal cases are also symbolic: because of our activism, and in order to protect our children, we were both forced to leave Russia and to seek political asylum in the European Union.

    After your visit to Moscow and your meeting with Vladimir Putin you said that “the world deserve[s] a new commitment to collaborative dialogue between our governments to avert disastrous wars for geopolitical domination, destruction of the climate, and cascading injustices that promote violence and terrorism.” We agree with you. But how can this new “collaborative dialogue” be possible when Mr. Putin has deliberately built a system based on corruption, injustice, falsification of elections, and violation of human rights and international law? How is it possible to have a discussion with Mr. Putin and not mention, not even once, the fate of Russian political prisoners, or the attacks against Russian journalists, artists, and environmentalists? Is it fair to speak with him about “geopolitics” and not mention new Russian laws against freedom of speech, restrictions on NGOs and activists, or the shameful law that forbids “homosexual propaganda”?

    By silencing Putin’s crimes you are silencing our struggle. By shaking his hand and failing to criticize his regime you are becoming his accomplice. By forgetting what international solidarity means you are insulting the Russian environmental movement.

    Dr. Stein, you still have several weeks before the elections in order to clarify your position on the anti-democratic and anti-environmental elements of Putin’s regime. We sincerely hope that our voices will be heard and that our questions will not go unanswered

    Best regards,
    Evgeniya Chirikova
    Nadezda Kutepova

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1789659071273663&id=100006887614791

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      16 October 2016 at 10:49 am

      Unfortunately what westerners do not realise is that the liberal atlanticists in Russia have the support of no more than 2% to 3% of the population.

      There are good reasons for this – amongst them, the realisation that the west are absolute hypocrites when it comes to their morality and their values. (See how the US decries bombing of civilian targets in Syria, but when Saudi allies of the US do it to civilians in Yemen – the US keeps selling them more bombs to continue).

      Currently Putin has the support of around 80% of Russians – even though confidence in the government overall has fallen to five year lows.

      • red-blooded 9.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 4:34 pm

        2-3%, eh? So, basically the same level of support as Jill Stein has in the US?
        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

        So, the views of an American woman who has 1-3% support in her country are big news and should wake people up to the evils of Hillary Clinton, but the views of a Russian woman who represents around 2-3% of her fellow Russians should be completely discounted….

        You’re nothing if not consistent, CV.

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 9:15 pm

          Huh? I back Jill Stein, but I’m not stupid or arrogant enough to try and portray her as representing some kind of secret majority view amongst US citizens which would suddenly appear if only there were true “press freedom”.

      • locus 9.1.2
        16 October 2016 at 8:55 pm

        If you have absolute control of the media and obliterate any opposition that might be a threat then 80% ‘support’ is par for the course

        Under communism the Soviet leaders used to have 100% support of the population

        • Paul 9.1.2.1
          16 October 2016 at 9:04 pm

          The drumbeat for war continues.

          • Colonial Viper 9.1.2.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 9:12 pm

            There seems to be no understanding in some quarters that the corporate MSM in the west are nowadays nothing more than establishment repeaters 95% of the time.

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.2.2
          16 October 2016 at 9:07 pm

          The Kremlin has some marginal editorial control of Russia’s private media; however anyone in Russia can check out the Washington Post or the New York Times any time that they want, and my understanding is that panel discussions and talkback on Russian TV and radio is dynamic and vociferous in covering the issues.

          Plus, Putin does long form press conferences and interviews in front of local and international media on a regular basis. No teleprompter.

          Better than any western leader.

          • Paul 9.1.2.2.1
            16 October 2016 at 9:10 pm

            You are dealing with people who have succumbed to the corporate media’s propaganda.

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.2.2.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 9:17 pm

              While simultaneously believing that they are free independent rational thinkers.

              • locus …
                17 October 2016 at 7:17 am

                Agreed – Putin’s speeches are impressive….

                but CV and Paul, look at the judgementalism in your exchanges in response to my comment

                – are you trying to start a flame war or trying to goad me into attacking an author?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 October 2016 at 4:14 pm

                  Apologies locus, nothing like that, was just putting a few more echoes into the echo chamber…

                  In general I find the ‘diversity loving’ west now has very little tolerance for different civilisational and societal models.

                  I am told that if you look on Russian TV there are plenty of long format panel discussions on on Russia’s economic situation, on Russia’s foreign relations with Europe, on Russia’s stance towards the problems in Ukraine, on Russia’s formative alliance with China, on Russia’s challenges in working with their “western partners.”

                  These are not superficial discussions, but in depth critical explorations on both the facts and the nuances of what is going on.

                  Are there plenty of pro-Kremlin pro-Putin experts on these panel talk shows? Sure. But there are also very powerful dissenters too.

                  The Russians get the top experts in the field, the top politicians and academics to participate. The likes of our adored Paul Henry would be laughed off stage.

                  TL/DR: Russian MSM while under plenty of government influence also makes a big effort to inform their audiences and critically examine key issues.

                  • locus …
                    18 October 2016 at 9:02 am

                    thanks CV – i agree there’s been constant bias against Russia in the western msm over the years, but i’m not sure that i agree with your argument of a free press in Russia given that so many journalists who have opposed Putin since 2000 have been murdered.

                    This report really must be read in its entirety.
                    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2016/jan/04/does-vladimir-putin-kill-journalists/

                    I almost quoted the entire report here because there’s so much courage in every journalist who stands up (and who stood up and paid the price) to criticise the regime in the Kremlin

                    of course I’m not accusing Putin directly, but it takes a verv brave Russian to go against the “80%”

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 October 2016 at 9:34 am

                      Personally I think Politifact headlining an article “Does Vladimir Putin kill journalists?” is a tad contrived BS in itself. It would be like them writing an article “Does Barack Obama kill wedding guests?” (I would argue that since Barack Obama authorises who is to be killed in every targetted drone strike, that he actually does, he doesn’t just “create the climate” for it to happen).

                      I will say this however – in the West, our elite have done a better job of co-opting the mainstream media so in general they don’t have to kill journalists.

                      But they do blacklist them so that they lose their jobs and can never work in the MSM again eg Cenk Uygur.

                      http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/22/rejecting_lucrative_offer_cenk_uygur_leaves

                      Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation offered again a few weeks ago what I feel is a more balanced view of the Russian media situation:

                      https://www.thenation.com/article/this-week-marks-the-tenth-anniversary-of-anna-politkovskayas-murder/

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 October 2016 at 9:43 am

                      Edit – IMO the way to view Putin is as the elected emperor of a Kremlin court which consists of different and very powerful factions, interests and intrigues.

                      Putin is head of one of these factions, perhaps the strongest faction – but at the same time not an overwhelmingly powerful one.

                      So there are other heads of other powerful factions within and without the Kremlin whom Putin has to work (and compromise) with every day in order to make the affairs of the capital function.

                      Imagine a foreigner who made the same mistake about the President of the USA/Commander and Chief of the US armed forces, and who thought Barack Obama “was in charge of” the United States. This of course would be an easy mistake to make, and the conclusion itself isn’t completely untrue – but it is mostly untrue.

    • Tamati Tautuhi 9.2
      16 October 2016 at 10:52 am

      I don’t think Jill Stein thinks Putin is an angel however I think if she was POTUS she would engage in more dialogue rather than rattle the drums or war like Obama and Clinton are doing. Maybe it is part of their pre election strategy?

    • RedLogix 9.3
      16 October 2016 at 10:55 am

      Yeah nah. Nuke Putin into green glass. Talking a waste of time.

      • Colonial Viper 9.3.1
        16 October 2016 at 11:01 am

        It’s interesting to see how the once upon a time peace movement focussed left has become fully on board with the idea of waging morally justifiable (if oxymoronic) humanitarian war, and confronting the reds under the bed (China and Russia) at every turn possible.

        • swordfish 9.3.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 1:40 pm

          Yep. Back in the 70s when I was a kid, it tended to be just the morally-conservative (mainly Catholic) section of Labour voters (and MPs) who enthusiastically embraced a full-on Red Scare Atlanticist position. That naĂŻve, child-like susceptibility to Cold War spin (via the MSM) appears to have widened considerably over recent decades.

          Also interesting to see just how emotionally overwrought some become when Clinton’s disturbingly hawkish record as Sec of State is highlighted. At best, minimization / at worst, outright denial (usually accompanied by teeth-gnashing, fist shaking and a hesitant, half-mumbled defence that hints that they haven’t actually read anything of substance on Clinton’s history). It seems they don’t want to be forced out of their simple Black and White comfort zone = if Trump equals Evil then Hillary must surely equal Good … Surely ???

          • JonL 9.3.1.1.1
            17 October 2016 at 2:57 pm

            Online forums, it is truly awful – if you don’t support Hillary, you are a degenrate Trump fanatic and Putin apologist, if you don’t support Trump you are a warmongering corrupt Hillary fan. Tribalism at it’s obscene worst ..and if you say you despise both of them………………….

      • Tamati Tautuhi 9.3.2
        16 October 2016 at 11:05 am

        Hillary is itching to get her fingers on the button and I think those US military boys want to try out their new hardware asap.

        • miravox 9.3.2.1
          16 October 2016 at 8:57 pm

          Two candidates that can create the pre-conditions for war, albeit in different ways – We’re pretty stuffed right now unless the diplomats can do their jobs.

          All things considered, I go with Chomsky and choose the lesser evil voting strategy (although not necessarily with the same rationale). Even in foreign policy and the likelihood of accelerating war. I’d take my chances with Clinton. At least she’d take advice from her advisors – some of whom will be other than military ‘boys’.

          As far as Trump goes, Putin will just have to insult Trump’s manhood and we’ll have WW3. The Chinese will just have to call him stupid.

          Trump is no holds barred advocating for violence in response to perceived threats to his ego.

          • Chooky 9.3.2.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 9:06 pm

            re “Trump is no holds barred advocating for violence in response to perceived threats to his ego”

            ….evidence?!

            not true imo

            • locus 9.3.2.1.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 9:14 pm

              Chooky –
              the bigoted aggressive unyielding language and behaviour that Trump exhibits is evidence enough of what creates and feeds the public’s thirst for using the weapons of war….

            • miravox 9.3.2.1.1.2
              16 October 2016 at 9:22 pm

              Evidence that Trump has a huge but fragile ego, advocates bullying and violence in cases of perceived threat and ignores advisors?

              His campaign rallies. Take your pick.

        • locus 9.3.2.2
          16 October 2016 at 9:03 pm

          TT – I assume that this is a tongue in the cheek comment about Clinton? … the only person in recent US politics who has suggested that it’s a consideration to use nuclear weapons is Trump

      • Barfly 9.3.3
        16 October 2016 at 11:06 am

        yeah nuke Putin into glass…the Russian counterstrike and following nuclear winter will cure global warming and human over population in one enormous BBQ yay we saved the planet /sarc … pity about the end of civilisation

        • Colonial Viper 9.3.3.1
          16 October 2016 at 11:31 am

          Don’t forget the important achievement of the first woman in the Oval Office

          Although I am sure that she will be safe in a bunker or on Air Force One somewhere far away while the ICBMs cross each other in the sky.

          • tinfoilhat 9.3.3.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 11:32 am

            🙄

          • Paul 9.3.3.1.2
            16 October 2016 at 12:09 pm

            There is nowhere safe in a nuclear war.

            • Colonial Viper 9.3.3.1.2.1
              16 October 2016 at 12:13 pm

              indeed.

              • red-blooded …
                16 October 2016 at 4:37 pm

                So don’t be so pathetic as to suggest that Clinton wants a nuclear war, then. This comment is aimed first at Tamati, but also applies to you, CV. Get a grip.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  16 October 2016 at 9:24 pm

                  Clinton declared at the second presidential debate that the USA should enforce a no-fly zone over Syria.

                  Gen Dunford has already given testimony that such an operation will be seen as an act of war against Russia and against Syria.

        • Tamati Tautuhi 9.3.3.2
          16 October 2016 at 12:10 pm

          That’s a very good point Barfly a nuclear dust up could solve a multitude of the world’s problems, especially the global warming phenomena and the over population problem, however I guess the global elite and USA military planners have got this all figured out already. The post nuclear growth strategy just like the Marshall Plan post WW2.

      • Gabby 9.3.4
        16 October 2016 at 1:38 pm

        Dumbest suggestion ennathaday. Priddirilacks.

  10. johnm 10
    16 October 2016 at 11:21 am

    HUGE: Putin Issues a Ultimatum to the United States

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL0jwhgJ4bw

    Published on Oct 14, 2016

    Putin demands not just apologies, but a change in America’s entire policy
    Translation courtesy of Russian View https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJFE…
    The Russian president plans to act as an equal, whether or not the U.S. wants to treat him as one.
    Vladimir Putin asked the US to remove its defense infrastructure from Eastern Europe and from the territory of new NATO members in the Balkans and the Baltics (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland) as well as its troops stationed there in recent years. He also insists that Washington’s sanction are lifted and compensation paid for the damage caused by them.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the termination of the plutonium processing agreement with the US, for hostile action by Washington against Russia and he set several conditions for its renewal – first, a “reduction of military infrastructure and the size of US contingent troops located in NATO countries who became members after September 1, 2000, to the level at which they were on the day of this agreement entering into force.”

    “In relation with the radical change of circumstances, a threat to the strategic stability arises as a result of hostile actions of the United States of America toward the Russian Federation, and the inability of the US to ensure the implementation of commitments in the processing of excess plutonium for weapons purposes in accordance with international contracts” is stated in the official document, which terminated the agreement.

    The agreement with the US was signed on August 29, 2000, and applies to the processing of excess plutonium for weapons purposes in Russia and the USA. Each party must take action to eliminate plutonium with a total weight of 34 tons.

    Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow sends a signal to Washington with its decision, that the US will not achieve anything by talking with Russia from a position of power, sanctions and ultimatums. This is a forced measure, but the Russian Foreign Minister stated that Russia is not abdicating its responsibilities for nuclear disarmament, according to material published on the website of the Ministry.

    Reuters also reported that Vladimir Putin terminated the agreement with the US for the disposal of plutonium from nuclear warheads. The agency notes that this is another indication of the deteriorating relations between Washington and Moscow. The decree noted that the deal was terminated because of “the resultant threat to strategic stability and due to the hostilities of the United States toward the Russian Federation”. The US proved unable to fulfill their obligations to the contract.

    The exact reason to terminate the agreement is the American method of processing the plutonium. The agreement call for the nuclear material to be processed “irreversibly”. Since 2010, the US stopped processing “irreversibly” and has only been burying the material, enabling them to produce nuclear munitions uncontrollably.

    The draft law to stop the agreement also stated that the agreement will be renewed by decision of President Vladimir Putin, who is also a drafter of this text. But first, the US would have to “remove the causes that led to the fundamental change of circumstances.”

    Moscow requires an “end of the hostile policy towards the Russian Federation through”:

    – A repeal of the “Magnitsky” Law from 2012, through which dozens of officials deemed responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky in prison, are banned from entering the United States.

    – A repeal of targeted against Russia provisions, in the Act of 2014 to support freedom in Ukraine.

    – A removal of all sanctions introduced by the United States to natural and legal persons from Russia.

    – A compensation for the damages caused to the Russian Federation as a result of the imposed sanctions, including damages caused by the (Russian) counter-sanctions.

    The bill states: “The crisis in Ukraine is used as a pretext for increasing the US military presence in Eastern Europe. In 2015 were created 6 centers for troop control in Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. Their main task is to provide operational transfer of large military forces of NATO in Eastern Europe. US military divisions entered the territory of the Baltic countries, and the number of airports for NATO aircraft were increased. US instructors are training personnel from the organization the “Right Sector” which is banned in Russia”.
    Keep us alive: http://russia-insider.com/support

    • tinfoilhat 10.1
      16 October 2016 at 11:27 am

      Appears to be Russia’s version of Sean Hannity.

    • Colonial Viper 10.2
      16 October 2016 at 11:34 am

      johnm: and both Putin and the Russian law makers know that the US will not even consider fulfilling a single one of these points.

      So, this is a political statement (and political warning) for the world to consider, more than anything else.

    • Psycho Milt 10.3
      16 October 2016 at 1:23 pm

      HUGE: Putin Issues a Ultimatum to the United States

      Funny – the more Putin demands that NATO withdraw its protection from Russia’s western neighbours, the more those neighbours are going to distrust Russia and demand NATO protection. Not so well played, chaps.

  11. save nz 11
    16 October 2016 at 11:31 am

    [Stein] is not the only one to think the Clinton might start world war 3.

    Trump bad, Clinton bad. Putin probably loves that the US is now got two terrible candidates. The international community fucked up when they let the Iraq war go ahead.

    [Stein] is the best candidate, but the democratic process seemed to require a miracle for her to be elected.

    [fify, save nz, I trust you meant Stein and not “Klein.” CV]

  12. johnm 12
    16 October 2016 at 11:41 am

    Rogue War Crimes State the U$ has not only used depleted uranium in Iraq but also tactical nuclear ordinance.

    New Bombs and War Crimes in Fallujah

    It has become apparent from Busby’s research that a new kind of bomb–which seems to be a neutron bomb–has been used in Fallujah, but also in other areas, including Lebanon.
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/new-bombs-and-war-crimes-in-fallujah/

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/press-tv-nukes-used-by-us-troops-at-fallujah/

    • johnm 12.1
      16 October 2016 at 12:34 pm

      Spelling should be Ordnance not Ordinance! 🙁

      • Wayne 12.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 5:43 pm

        Seriously?

        The US is not stupid. There is no prospect they have used any sort of nuke (apart from depleted uranium shells from antitank weapons and the A!0 aircraft 30mm gun) in the Iraq, Syria or Lebanon. Any military gain would be trivial relative to the risk of disclosure and thus world wide censure.

        I suspect the massive blast referred to in the article were bunker busting bombs. In the late 1990’s the US developed a 5,000 kg bomb using gun barrels as a superstrong casing to enable deep penetration in earth and concrete. A couple of those under a large building would completely collapse it. In essence the same as the Tallboys and Grand Slams used by the RAF at the end of world war two. These were used with this effect against tunnels, U boat pens, the V3 site and underground V2 factories.

        Alternatively a MOAB bomb which is large fuel air vapour bomb dropped from a Hercules C130 (too big in diameter for bombers), but it would not be so effective against hardened buildings.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 5:46 pm

          IMO Chinese and Russian satellites (and ground stations) would have picked up some of the unhideable characteristics of a nuclear explosion instantly and the world would have known about it very quickly.

        • Wayne 12.1.1.2
          16 October 2016 at 8:45 pm

          Actually the bunker buster bomb (GBU 57) is 15,000 kg – easily enough to destroy a very large building if detonated beneath it. It can penetrate 200 ft into earth and friable rock.

    • johnm 12.2
      17 October 2016 at 9:27 am

      The Real Humanitarian Crisis Is Not Aleppo — Paul Craig Roberts

      Why do we hear only of the “humanitarian crisis in Aleppo” and not of the humanitarian crisis everywhere else in Syria where the evil that rules in Washington has unleashed its ISIL mercenaries to slaughter the Syrian people? Why do we not hear about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen where the US and its Saudi Arabian vassal are slaughtering Yemeni women and children? Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Libya where Washington destroyed a country leaving chaos in its place? Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, ongoing now for 13 years, or the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan now 15 years old?

      The answer is that the crisis in Aleppo is the crisis of Washington losing its ISIL mercenaries to the Syrian army and Russian air force. The jihadists sent by Obama and the killer bitch Hillary (“We came, we saw, he died”) to destroy Syria are being themselves destroyed. The Obama regime and the Western presstitutes are trying to save the jihadists by covering them in the blanket of “humanitarian crisis.”

      http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/16/the-real-humanitarian-crisis-is-not-aleppo-paul-craig-roberts/

  13. Chooky 13
    16 October 2016 at 11:47 am

    Hillary Clinton has form as a warmonger in so many ways

    (as I said yesterday on Open Mike when asked why I supported Trump over Clinton
and I have never particularly liked Trump)

    briefly:

    ‘Hillary Clinton Turned a Stable, Developed Nation Into an ISIS Safe Haven. That’s the Real Benghazi Scandal’

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/hillary-clinton-turned-nation-into-isis-safe-haven_b_9571956.html

    ‘Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya’s Sarin to Syrian Rebels’

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-approved-sending-libya-sarin-syrian-rebels.html

    ‘WikiLeaks: The two faces of Hillary Clinton on Syria’
    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/362819-clinton-emails-syria-wikileaks/

    She is a friend of war criminal Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger is her mentor
say no more!

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/madeleine-albright-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton

    https://www.salon.com/2016/05/11/college_protests_revive_accusations_against_war_criminal_madeleine_albright_who_defended_deaths_of_500000_iraqi_kids/

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-henry-clintons-relationship-kissinger/story?id=39195203

    ( at least Trump is not BOUGHT/ or supported by the same compromised crowd nor does he want war with Russia or in the Middle East )

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      16 October 2016 at 11:54 am

      Thanks for providing these links Chooky.

    • locus 13.2
      16 October 2016 at 10:04 pm

      And for an encore…Donald Trump is the saviour of America and whose calm and considered approach to diplomacy and peace will save the world.

      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-violent-rhetoric-history-226873

      http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kicker/oh-yes-donald-trump-defin_b_9461016.html

      you can’t find any history proving or disproving what Trump as President would do with those evil terrorists in the ME, or the ‘liars’ who call him out as a serial offender, or rapists crossing the border, but his MO and track record are way more likely to result in the flames of hatred against foreigners, Muslims, blacks, women, Mexican migrants, etc. burning bright in the US than if Hillary is POTUS

      Everything about Trump reeks of war and violence and winning at all costs

      • Chooky 13.2.1
        16 October 2016 at 11:37 pm

        @locus…disagree with that analysis of Trump …here is a discussion by academics, analysts and a Democrat spokesperson (from different political persuasions and affiliations) on Trump and the smear campaign

        https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/362454-us-election-final-stretch/

        “With less than a month to go, one of America’s nastiest political campaigns enters the final stretch. With both major candidates intensely unpopular with many in the electorate, is it a choice of the lesser evil?

        CrossTalking with Michael Flanagan, George Szamuely, and Mac Zilber.”

        • locus 13.2.1.1
          17 October 2016 at 6:24 am

          l sincerely hope that the world (and US minorities) don’t have to find out just how much destruction this narrow minded, self-obsessed, alt-right, Koch brothers glove puppet and his angry white authoritarian followers will inflict

    • Macro 13.3
      16 October 2016 at 10:12 pm

      at least Trump is not BOUGHT/ or supported by the same compromised crowd nor does he want war with Russia or in the Middle East

      And where do you think his “millions” come from? Certainly not the US banks – they have blackballed him as a bad investment..
      No he won’t want to bite the hand that feeds him – Russia.

  14. Wayne 14
    16 October 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Well, if you ever needed more proof, a vote for Stein is effectively a vote for Trump (at least in those states where the contest between Trump and Clinton is close).

    As for the substance of the assertion that Clinton would risk nuclear war with Russia over Syria, what nonsense. Whatever else you might say about Clinton, she is not stupid.

    She knows perfectly well that a no-fly zone has to be negotiated, at least with Russia. Neither Russia or the US would want to risk aerial combat over Syria, (not that it would lead to a nuclear war in any event). There were plenty of shoot-downs in the Cold War, especially in the 1950’s, but both sides knew that was not a pretext for general war.

    Obviously Clinton wants a no-fly zone over certain parts of Syria, notably Aleppo. However, despite the tragedy of Aleppo, there is not enough at stake to risk a direct confrontation between the US and Russia. Clinton knows this way more than Jill Stein. Clinton is deeply schooled on the dynamics of US and Russian relationship. She has a pretty good idea where the limits lie.

    Seventy years of post WW2 of cold war and geo-political conflict has meant that both sides how to deal with each other, or more particularly where the limits lie. There is a whole bunch of specialists/analysts in State, Defense, CIA, and NSC for whom this is their life’s work. No doubt CV sees them as warmongers but their purpose is in fact the direct opposite. Because of the importance of the Russia/US relationship they get heard at the highest levels.

    Thus the US did not do much about Georgia in 2008 or about Crimea more recently. Of course such actions are not cost free for Russia. They have been subject to sanctions which have had economic consequences for Russia. They are intended to make Russia think twice about the level of support it provides to East Ukraine, and seem to have succeeded to some extent.

    There is nothing in Syria that would cause Russia and the US to come into direct conflict (except by accident, but accidents are quickly sectioned off). Russia could bomb Aleppo to smithereens and the US would not react militarily. Of course Russia would pay a price, but it will not be a military price.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      16 October 2016 at 12:16 pm

      Normally I would agree with your perspective on this Wayne but the “Russia hacked everything” and “Russia wants to sabotage our elections” hysteria currently escalating in the USA does not give me much hope.

    • Macro 14.2
      16 October 2016 at 1:15 pm

      Clinton is deeply schooled on the dynamics of US and Russian relationship. She has a pretty good idea where the limits lie.

      QFT

      Seventy years of post WW2 of cold war and geo-political conflict has meant that both sides (know) how to deal with each other, or more particularly where the limits lie. There is a whole bunch of specialists/analysts in State, Defense, CIA, and NSC for whom this is their life’s work. No doubt CV sees them as warmongers but their purpose is in fact the direct opposite. Because of the importance of the Russia/US relationship they get heard at the highest levels.

      Not so her main rival Trump who from past behaviours takes delight in ignoring all advice.

      • Chooky 14.2.1
        16 October 2016 at 1:44 pm

        @ Macro …really?!…Trump takes advice from General Flynn actually ( well respected , measured and no warmonger)

        ‘He was one of the most respected intel officers of his generation. Now he’s leading ‘Lock her up’ chants.’

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-the-entire-national-security-establishment-has-rejected-trumpexcept-for-this-man/2016/08/15/d5072d96-5e4b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html

        ‘Trump adviser Michael T. Flynn on his dinner with Putin and why Russia Today is just like CNN’

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/

      • Chooky 14.2.2
        16 October 2016 at 1:55 pm

        also how reliable is Hillary Clinton actually…????!!!!.

        ..this character assessment is revealing, if not damning, from a Former Secret Service Agent who spent eight years guarding the Clinton family in the White House – former Secret Service agent, author of ‘Crisis of Character’ – Gary Byrne.

        https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/362733-presidential-vote-scandals-us/

        • Macro 14.2.2.1
          16 October 2016 at 10:18 pm

          You know who funds RT Chooky?
          State-owned RIA Novosti news agency, which founded RT in 2005, is one of the largest in Russia.
          Surprise! Surprise! They run a character assassination of Hillary Clinton. Get Real!

          • Chooky 14.2.2.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 10:27 pm

            @ Macro …RT is mainly run by independent minded American journalists …it is has contributors from Europe , South America, London…and especially USA ( if anyone cares to take a look)…Republicans and Democrats are interviewed, involved in discussions/debates …as well as ex security analysts, CIA, think tank analysts, journalists , diplomats…

            Gary Bryne who has published a recent book has been interviewed on numerous USA channels….just look him up on utube or google him…in fact I first saw him interviewed by American television

            ( I guess you don’t like open debate…and you call yourself a Green Party person?!)

          • Colonial Viper 14.2.2.1.2
            16 October 2016 at 10:38 pm

            Surprise! Surprise! They run a character assassination of Hillary Clinton. Get Real!

            Sophie Shevardnadze on RT is a pretty even handed interviewer. Smart too.

            Can you give me an example of where RT ran a character assassination of Hillary Clinton. That is, something which is beyond a mild editorial bias and an actual hit piece on Clinton.

        • locus 14.2.2.2
          16 October 2016 at 10:19 pm

          Chooky thanks for your link to an ex secret service guy trying hard to promote his book

          heˋs been called out as a liar by others who served with him

          http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/field-guide-to-defending-hillary-clinton-against-fake-scandals/24710/

          • Chooky 14.2.2.2.1
            16 October 2016 at 10:31 pm

            yes I suggest people don’t take your word for it …but watch that interview to check his authenticity /credibility for themselves …he is asked some hard critical questions by Sophie and discusses his critics and deals with his critics quite well imo

            https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/362733-presidential-vote-scandals-us/

            • locus 14.2.2.2.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 10:38 pm

              ah, i see you’ve posted a link to that paragon of independent reporting -Russia Today

              The funny thing is that if you read
              http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-bill-clinton-secret-service-224578

              you’ll get a slightly different perspective

              btw Chooky – you don’t think that Byrne might be targeting Trump supporters at this moment in time so he can make a fast buck?

              • Chooky …
                16 October 2016 at 11:02 pm

                if people don’t like RT they can see Byrne interviewed elsewhere on American tv/utube or read his book…and in much more hard hitting detail about his experiences with the Clintons

                re “you don’t think that Byrne might be targeting Trump supporters at this moment in time so he can make a fast buck?”…actually no

                Bryne looks pretty genuine to me and the risks he is taking I would think would outweigh any potential advantages

                • locus …
                  17 October 2016 at 6:42 am

                  in case you didn’t read the article I linked to:

                  The author of a new tell-all book about Hillary Clinton could never have seen any of what he claims — he was too low-ranking — say several high-level members of Secret Service presidential details, including the president of the Association of Former Agents of the United States Secret Service.

                  On Tuesday, AFAUSSS, which is strictly nonpartisan, is set to release a statement blasting Gary Byrne author of “Crisis in Character,” saying members “strongly denounce” the book, which they add has made security harder by eroding the trust between agents and the people they protect

      • JonL 14.2.3
        17 October 2016 at 3:06 pm

        From Dmitri Orlov’s latest post

        “The top brass and the politicians may be delusional, megalomaniacal and inadvertently suicidal, but the mid-rank people who develop the battle plans are rarely suicidal. If a particular plan has no conceivable chance of victory but is quite likely to lead to them and their families and friends becoming vaporized in a nuclear blast, they are unlikely to recommend it.”

        “In short, on the one hand, all-out nuclear annihilation remains quite unlikely, barring an accident. But, on the other hand, such an accident is by no means impossible, because when it comes to US foreign policy “Oops!” seems to be the operative term.

        http://cluborlov.blogspot.com.au/

    • mikesh 14.3
      16 October 2016 at 3:46 pm

      “There is nothing in Syria that would cause Russia and the US to come into direct conflict”

      There is of course the question of toppling the Assad regime. Russia wants Assad to remain in power, while the US wants to replace him with a US-friendly puppet. There is also the pipeline question, and also the fact that Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base is located in Syria.

      There is also a likelihood of Turkey pulling out of NATO because of the US’s refusal to extradite that Gulen chappie and Hillary’s support for the Kurds. The Turks might think twice about that if the US achieved success in Syria.

      • Wayne 14.3.1
        16 October 2016 at 5:48 pm

        mikesh

        All fair points, but none of these things are substantial enough for anyone to actually risk a US-Russia military confrontation. Both sides know this.

        Which is why, despite all the rhetoric, Kerry and Lavrov are meeting again to see if they can get some form of ceasefire back on track.

      • Colonial Viper 14.3.2
        16 October 2016 at 5:48 pm

        There is of course the question of toppling the Assad regime. Russia wants Assad to remain in power,

        IMO Russia wants a stable, secular, sovereign government (i.e. not a vassal regime) in charge in Damascus.

        For now that is probably going to be led by al-Assad but in the medium to long term the Russians will be quite happy if he moves on as long as those conditions are met.

  15. Paul 15
    16 October 2016 at 12:18 pm

    I find John Pilger a more reputable and reliable source than ex National MP Wayne Mapp.

    ‘ Why Hillary Clinton is more dangerous than Donald Trump.’

    https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump/

  16. Paul 16
    16 October 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Another excellent article by Pilger on the current drumbeat to war by the media.

    An excerpt.

    “If war with Russia breaks out, by design or by accident, journalists will bear much of the responsibility.

    In the US, the anti-Russia campaign has been elevated to virtual reality. The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, an economist with a Nobel Prize, has called Donald Trump the “Siberian Candidate” because Trump is Putin’s man, he says.

    Trump had dared to suggest, in a rare lucid moment, that war with Russia might be a bad idea. In fact, he has gone further and removed American arms shipments to Ukraine from the Republican platform. “Wouldn’t it be great if we got along with Russia,” he said.

    This is why America’s warmongering liberal establishment hates him. Trump’s racism and ranting demagoguery have nothing to do with it. Bill and Hillary Clinton’s record of racism and extremism can out-trump Trump’s any day (this week is the 20th anniversary of the Clinton welfare “reform” that launched a war on African-Americans).

    The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times – taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears – demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of “perpetual war” are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping.

    Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.

    “Trump would have loved Stalin!” bellowed Vice-President Joe Biden at a rally for Hillary Clinton. With Clinton nodding, he shouted, “We never bow. We never bend. We never kneel. We never yield. We own the finish line. That’s who we are. We are America!” ”

    https://newmatilda.com/2016/08/24/the-media-baying-for-blood-and-nuclear-war/

    • Stuart Munro 16.1
      16 October 2016 at 12:29 pm

      Yes, Trump is Putin’s man. He’ll blink.

      • Paul 16.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 12:34 pm

        Pilger’s article ends as follows…

        “Next year, it will be a century since Wilfred Owen wrote the following. Every journalist should read it and remember it.

        If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
        Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
        Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
        Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
        My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
        To children ardent for some desperate glory,
        The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
        Pro patria mori. ”

        Stuart, you speak with such high zest.

        • Stuart Munro 16.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 12:52 pm

          By no means – but I don’t believe a Russian hegemony is a whit more desirable than an American one. Rather less in fact – Russian nationalism is not enlightened.

          I should like to see Putin back within his borders and preparing to vacate his office in favour of a democratically elected president.

          I don’t think you have swallowed the RT line as wholly as CV – you can probably recognise Russian escalation in the lead up to the forthcoming conflict.

          I have had to work with Russians – they make the yanks look honest.

          • Paul 16.1.1.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 12:59 pm

            Putin – back within his borders???

            Wouldn’t you like to the see US forces back within its borders?
            I think many people in Latin America, the Philippines, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and other countries have a much bigger issue with US imperialism.
            You appear to be a cheerleader for US imperialism, Stuart. You speak with such high zest.

            • Stuart Munro 16.1.1.1.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 1:09 pm

              In fact I’d prefer neither.

              But Putin’s opposition to US intentions in Syria, whether they be materiale support for anti-government forces or the vast Zionist conspiracy some have mentioned, is measured, not in US casualties, but Syrian civilian casualties.

              Russia’s involvement here is not constructive at all.

              US withdrawel is not on the cards – but supposing Russia establishes a string of bases across the region do you suppose that will increase or decrease US basing in the region?

              The belief that any progressive values are served by supporting Putin is deeply misguided. What do Russian progressives say about him?

              • Paul …
                16 October 2016 at 1:15 pm

                You say you’d prefer neither and I only hear you critiquing Russian aggression.
                Propaganda works in both directions.

              • mikesh …
                16 October 2016 at 4:00 pm

                “But Putin’s opposition to US intentions in Syria … … … is measured, not in US casualties, but Syrian civilian casualties.”

                Takes two to tango.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  16 October 2016 at 4:11 pm

                  And the US was bombing away in Syria at least 2 years before Russia was forced to militarily intervene due to the deteriorating situation.

                  The death toll in the country skyrocketed while the US pretended to fight ISIS – because in actual fact the US was hoping that ISIS would help regime change Assad out of Damascus.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    16 October 2016 at 6:09 pm

                    Hope is not a war crime.

                    Obama probably meant to de-escalate conflict in Iraq. In 2014 no-one knew what ISIS was – there is a rapid turnover of Islamist groups. If ISIS turned away from Baghdad so much the better, would be the thinking – and Assad being decades past his useby date, can fall without a single tear being shed if it comes to that.

                    Russia was ‘forced’ by the opportunity to contest middle east stability at close quarters. They have bombed the Turkmen. They have bombed ISIS. They are bombing Aleppo.

                    Enlightened bombs though – bombs that magically attract the naive support of the liberal intelligentsia in the same way Stalin’s Gulags did. It is worth considering what grand illusion Putin uses to replace communism in progressive thought however. Whatever it is, RT is broadcasting it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 October 2016 at 6:12 pm

                      The Russians are providing close air support to Syrian Government forces as they clear out the Islamist/al-Nusra held quarter of Aleppo, street by street, intersection by intersection, shop by shop, apartment by apartment.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      16 October 2016 at 6:18 pm

                      No child left behind eh – a warcrime on a par with the white phosphorus bombardment of Fallujeh. Or Aleppo 1915. Or Lidditz.

                      We cannot stop it – but we should not endorse it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 October 2016 at 6:50 pm

                      Turkey and the US could stop it by ordering their proxy regime change forces out of Aleppo. Or at least, cutting off their resupply through the Turkish border.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      16 October 2016 at 7:15 pm

                      Turkey and the US will not be cooperating anytime soon. Something about a failed coup that serves Russian interests better than anyone else.

                      McCain would probably recommend something like swatting the Russian airforce in Syria. Putin will not stop until his forces are checked in any case – and in Syria their logistics are at full stretch.

                      My US contacts expect no action until after the election. For this period, Putin may murder Syrians with impunity – and he will make the most of it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 October 2016 at 7:20 pm

                      Why won’t the Americans and the Turkish order their proxy Islamist fighters out of Aleppo?

                      Isn’t the saving of civilian lives paramount here?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      16 October 2016 at 9:25 pm

                      You misunderstand the relationship.

                      America does not order such groups. They maintain a tenuous cooperation in limited circumstances.

                      It is vital to their effort against ISIS – Al Nusra, to the extent that it is Al Qaeda, is a natural competitor of ISIS. They have somewhat fluid boundaries that some people can cross and acquire information. But they compete for resources and are likely doctrinally at odds over multiple issues.

                      But you are just repeating RT’s lines.

                      “America is warmongering and threatening nuclear war by not supporting Assad and Putin in the mass-murder of Aleppo’s remaining civilians.”

                      Nope.

                      What is happening in Syria is classical cold war brinkmanship. ‘Crazy Ivan’ they used to call it. The only sensible action is to face them down. Russia expects that this institutional knowledge has been lost – they haven’t been called on Chechnya or Georgia or the Ukraine. This is why Lavrov calls the US pussies. Perhaps they will wait until the tanks roll into Poland. Trump would. Syria is not an attractive occupation – negligible oil. But there are economic and diplomatic levers available to the US as well as nuclear ones. I’m sure analysts are kriegspielling them all now.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 October 2016 at 9:39 pm

                      Seriously, what the fuck interest would the resource poor and economically struggling Poland and Polish hold for a Moscow already overstretched administering its own territory.

                      Can you answer me that?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      16 October 2016 at 9:57 pm

                      Poland has the historical habit of kicking Russia’s ass even at odds of 1 to 10. Talk to some Poles – RT will never tell you about it.

                      Germany apparently considered Poland worthless prior to WWII also – due to a mathematics of divisions acquired and divisional defence requirements removed. They took it anyway.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  16 October 2016 at 5:58 pm

                  Yes indeed.

                  The arrogance of the citizens of Aleppo, remaining in their homes and demanding the exit of the Assad.

                  How dare they!

                  After all, he’s a mate of the tyrant Putin.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    16 October 2016 at 6:16 pm

                    The arrogance of the citizens of Aleppo, remaining in their homes and demanding the exit of the Assad.

                    Not quite.

                    The rebel held part of Aleppo, which is an older, smaller quarter of the city, comprises no more than 15% of the city’s population.

                    85% of Aleppo’s population lives in the Syrian Government held parts of the city.

                    AFAIK most of Aleppo’s residents back al-Assad, with another significant portion roughly neutral towards al-Assad in their opinion. Maybe ~5% to 10% of Aleppo’s population actually support al-Nusra and the Islamists.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      16 October 2016 at 6:35 pm

                      Most of Aleppo are dead or fled.

                      Funny how murderous military dictators always enjoy support in the 80% plus band. Leaving the supporter category immediately makes one a dead ‘jihadist’.

                      So, one imagines, would demanding free and fair elections.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 October 2016 at 6:46 pm

                      Approx 1.5M people continue to live in the majority government controlled sectors of Aleppo. And they continue their daily lives despite constant shelling from the Islamist rebel quarter.

                      Assad would easily win in “free and fair elections” which is why the US has always insisted that Assad may not stand in any such elections.

      • Chooky 16.1.2
        16 October 2016 at 9:09 pm

        evidence that Trump is “Putin’s man”…links?

  17. johnm 17
    16 October 2016 at 12:29 pm

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts : On Syria & Washington’s Psychopathic WWIII Gamble

    http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2016/952-int119

    “People say, ‘Oh the Cold War’s started again.’ You hear this constantly from pundits. I wish the Cold War would come back, because the Cold War was very carefully managed; tensions were reduced. We’ve got the opposite of a Cold War; we’ve got tensions increased beyond any level they ever existed before.”—PCR

    We welcome once again Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Secretary to the Treasury for Economic Policy, who joins us to discuss the increasingly dangerous geopolitical tensions focused upon Syria. Dr. Roberts argues that unless the European peoples wake up and refuse to co-operate with Washington’s insane neocon policy of “world hegemony”—a co-operation that helps facilitate Washington’s illegal wars around the globe—the result will almost inevitably be a thermonuclear WWIII: a war that can have no winners.

  18. Tamati Tautuhi 18
    16 October 2016 at 12:33 pm

    The US oligarchs are worried about Trump as he is not singing from their hymn sheet.

  19. Tamati Tautuhi 19
    16 October 2016 at 12:37 pm

    Whatever happened to the protests like the Anti-Vietnam Protests, I guess everyone is too scared of big brother these days hence no protesting. I wouldn’t be happy sending my children to the Middle East to fight for the US corporates and banking cartels, especially with the possibility of a major escalation in violence?

    • Paul 19.1
      16 October 2016 at 12:43 pm

      Debt and unemployment.
      Students in the 60s and 70s didn’t have debt and there were jobs, so they were not cowed as the present generation are.

    • Psycho Milt 19.2
      16 October 2016 at 1:28 pm

      Whatever happened to the protests like the Anti-Vietnam Protests, I guess everyone is too scared of big brother these days hence no protesting. I wouldn’t be happy sending my children to the Middle East to fight for the US corporates and banking cartels…

      Given that nobody is asking you to send your children anywhere, let alone to the Middle East to fight for US corporations, perhaps that explains the lack of protests? Maybe you should ponder the lack of protests in Russia, where people’s children are actually being sent to the Middle East to kill people (mostly civilians). Why’s that?

  20. Paul 20
    16 October 2016 at 1:07 pm

    “We live in a world where the powerful deceive us.
    We know they lie.
    They know we know they lie.
    They don’t care.
    We say we care.
    But we do nothing.
    And nothing ever changes.
    It’s normal.
    Welcome to the post-truth world.”

    Adam Curtis.

  21. Tamati Tautuhi 21
    16 October 2016 at 1:14 pm

    You are either part of the establishment or you are not, if you think otherwise you are labelled by the establishment as a conspiracy theorist? We are all being brainwashed by mass media, evidently 95% of the worlds media is controlled by six companies?
    These are obviously linked to the NWO new world order?

  22. Tamati Tautuhi 22
    16 October 2016 at 3:48 pm

    The problem is you do not know what to believe in this day and age, the US Government has a history of flying false flags which are well documented, and I don’t believe Assad and Putin are angels either. So who do you trust these days, MSM media worldwide has lost credibility and politicans worldwide are merely prostitutes to the NWO.

    The average human being is just a pawn in a worldwide power game, with many conflicts ending up with the inevitable shit results and the associated misery that goes with war games.

    • jcuknz 22.1
      17 October 2016 at 9:58 am

      “The average human being is just a pawn in a worldwide power game, with many conflicts ending up with the inevitable shit results and the associated misery that goes with war games.”

      No wonder people call NZ a paradise in comparison elsewhere on TS.

  23. mosa 23
    17 October 2016 at 11:41 am

    I like Jill Stein its a shame she cant debate the policies of disaster no 1 and Mr disaster no 2.
    The American people are poorly served.

    Yeah i agree CV about Russia, Hillary has assured the warmongers they will get their war.