one thought on <u+201c> why hillary won<u+2019>t unleash wwiii <u+201d> shorty says: october 30, 2016 at 8:01 pm 




select comments | overheard (originally on russia insider) from time to time we import comments we regard as lucid or thought-provoking to a particular discussion. this is such a thread. some opinions we agree with, some we don<u+2019>t. but they all add an edge to this topic. <u+2014>the editors 




mmchomek <u+2022> 16 hours ago alright, let<u+2019>s sum this up. 




hillary can<u+2019>t launch a no fly zone over syria, because there is already one in place? well, the point they are trying to make is that they will get rid of the russian and syrian air defenses to launch their own <u+201c>we can fly-you can<u+2019>t-zone<u+201d>. with force. hillary expressed her willingness to do this several times already. 




yes, general dunford said <u+201c>we would have to go to war with syria and russia<u+201d> you kind of left out the followup, where he says <u+201c>that is a pretty fundamental decision that certainly i<u+2019>m not going to make<u+201d> not, <u+201c>we can<u+2019>t do this<u+201d> e.g, he<u+2019>s waiting for the order from the commander in chief. 




this was at the very beginning of the article >she is fully supported by virtually the whole us establishment; a bipartisan, neocon/neoliberalcon, regime change/<u+201d>humanitarian<u+201d> imperialist axis. 




so who is going to stop her? 




and lastly, first finished sarmat won<u+2019>t be slipped inside a silo at least until late 2018 hillary most likely gets to oval office next february kind of a non-sequitur to even mention it 




so you basically say <u+201c>this is why hillary won<u+2019>t start wwiii<u+201d> and then you throw in a bunch of non-arguments and contradictions 




<u+2022><u+2022><u+2022> 




mike john elissen mmchomek <u+2022> 8 hours ago `and lastly, first finished sarmat won<u+2019>t be slipped inside a silo at least until late 2018 hillary most likely gets to oval office next february kind of a non-sequitur to even mention it` 




followed by `so you basically say <u+201c>this is why hillary won<u+2019>t start wwiii<u+201d> and then you throw in a bunch of non-arguments and contradictions` seems to me the only `non-argumentation` is your view on billary taking control next year and immediately starting ww3. even for a war-loving us hawk like her, it will take time to start a war with russia. 




mmchomek mike john elissen <u+2022> 8 hours ago god, hillary doesn<u+2019>t even need to be president to lobby for war. she<u+2019>s been doing exactly that for three straight decades. now she has full support of entire d.c behind her back. even as kjell mentions one or two good, down to earth generals in pentagon are not going to be enough, when most of their colleagues lobby for spending and interventions hoping to end up as senior advisors for defense contractor giants. entire dc, even bah, especially the <u+201c>progressive think tanks<u+201d> (who get funded by things like lockheed martin and even saudi arabia) is crying for cruise missile strikes on syria as we speak. 




mike john elissen mmchomek <u+2022> 6 hours ago your argumentation for calling escobar`s points `non-arguments` is, or rather was ao the fact hrc takes office in january (not february as you claimed) 2017, and the new sarmat will be in service in 2018. to change the subject (clinton&co warmongering and making profits <u+2013> we all know that) does not change the fact billary needs time to prepare for a war with russia. you can call kjell as a `rescue line` all you want, fact remains your own argumentation is `non`. 




<u+2022><u+2022><u+2022> kjell hasthi mmchomek <u+2022> 16 hours ago <u+2013> hillary most likely gets to oval office next february pepe did not say that 




neil tana kjell hasthi <u+2022> 7 hours ago she will. trump is an idiot and is probably acting that way to drive another agenda because he can<u+2019>t be that stupid. the real questions is how serious is all of this to russia. i think it is very serious. the us has already shown how they manipulate people to wage war against their government, supply them with weapons, call it a civil war, plant false flags to push it over the edge, call it unhumanitarian to open air war options, then invite others to join in on the fun while selling them weapons in the process to do so. they can easily do this to russia if syria falls or not. they just need to excite the 20 million muslims in russia that borders the middle east. i<u+2019>d say that russia is a great risk and should take decisive actions. they could just use air fuel bombs as they are not radioactive but destroy everything in its path like a tactical nuke. to this point, the eu needs to be very worried because they are on the front lines and are sleep walking under the direction of the us who is an ocean away. 




kjell hasthi mmchomek <u+2022> 14 hours ago <u+2013> as i said before, i don<u+2019>t believe trump will win 




that is naiv as both hillary and kaine are unpopular. in pentagon, almost hated. 




mmchomek kjell hasthi <u+2022> 14 hours ago how is that possible? she is their major job provider. 




kjell hasthi mmchomek <u+2022> 14 hours ago there are 90 million made redundant trump is a more attractive candidate for them the polls presented on telly are all manipulated (when compared to independent polls). hillary is well behind, and she is losing voters these days. the putin bashing did not save her. 




mmchomek kjell hasthi <u+2022> 14 hours ago trump has wowed to pull out of middle east, stop babysitting and subsidizing other nato members and become buddies with the <u+201c>greatest existential threat<u+201d> e.g russia 




how is he a more attractive candidate for the pentagon, than hillary who<u+2019>s seeking armed confrontation everywhere? 




kjell hasthi mmchomek <u+2022> 14 hours ago trump presents the globalists as an existential threat, and this election as the most important in human history. it is about saving humanity. 




mmchomek kjell hasthi <u+2022> 14 hours ago i understand and agree, now please try to fit what you<u+2019>ve just said into your previous post about trump being the more attractive choice for the pentagon, because i<u+2019>m lost here. 




kjell hasthi mmchomek <u+2022> 14 hours ago that is new. some group of (4 stars?) general approached trump and asked him to be candidate. their arguments were about stopping madman hillary. trump said yes to them 




mmchomek kjell hasthi <u+2022> 14 hours ago so there is an actual anti-war faction inside the pentagon? that sounds too good to be true. most of those guys lobby war like madmen, because they get lucrative advisor contracts with defense industries after they retire. isn<u+2019>t it just some hearsay? 




<u+2022><u+2022><u+2022> 




dan kopfz mmchomek <u+2022> 11 hours ago unlike the psychopaths in the white house, the vast majority of the military leadership are not completely insane, and would not meekly follow orders when those orders would mean the lives of millions of americans. 




should hillary push for a no-fly zone, it<u+2019>s not the russians she<u+2019>d need to worry about<u+2013>it<u+2019>s a military coup. as everyone knows, in a military coup, you eliminate the current leadership. 




dan kopfz dan kopfz <u+2022> 11 hours ago there<u+2019>s another reality that the military would be taking into account, that mad hillary probably wouldn<u+2019>t. 




china is not stupid. 




an empire doesn<u+2019>t get to be 8000+ years old by making miscalculations. china knows that if the us is willing to commit to a hot war with russia, than they<u+2019>d be next if the us won. that means the chinese would be looking to make sure that the us doesn<u+2019>t win, and given the current tensions in the south china, might join the war on russia<u+2019>s side as a full ally, openly declaring war against the us. 




without going nuclear, in an open hot war against china and russia (and syria, and iran, and others), nato can<u+2019>t win. the pentagon won<u+2019>t make that miscalculation either. 




peter jennings <u+2022> 14 hours ago the us have been fighting lame armies filled with soldiers who would rather be somewhere else. tending to their crops or animals for example. 




afghanistan isn<u+2019>t going as expected. libya isn<u+2019>t going as expected. iraq isn<u+2019>t going as expected. in syria they have got bogged down, exposing their proxy war to all, when it was initially advertising as <u+2018>humanitarian intervention<u+2019>. 




when it comes to russia, a determined, battle hardened, well trained army with highly advanced weapons, the us will resemble europe during the last world war. vote in a warmonger, you will get war, that<u+2019>s where they get their kicks. 




stevenstarr <u+2022> 14 hours ago wishful thinking. 




richardstevenhack <u+2022> 4 hours ago apparently both alexander mercouris and pepe escobar have succumbed to what is known as <u+201c>cognitive dissonance<u+201d><u+2013> the attitude that because something would be impossible to accept, it therefore is impossible to happen. 




while i would expect some members of the pentagon to school clinton on the problems of establishing a no-fly-zone in syria once she is elected, the fact remains that there is no reason to believe she will accept that position. 




as i<u+2019>ve said before, the goal of the syria crisis is to set the preconditions for a long war with iran. first syria<u+2019>s military has to be degraded, then israel (and possibly nato) will attack hizballah in lebanon into the bekaa valley via syrian territory. then and only then can israel initiate a war with iran, having more or less <u+201c>disarmed<u+201d> iran<u+2019>s allies right next to israel. 




if israel wants to achieve its goal of taking iran out of the middle east picture, and the us military-industrial complex wants to achieve its goal of an expensive, profitable, decades long war with iran, then syria has to go. which means that there will be no let-up in pushing for that result. 




and we all know hillary clinton is totally on board with both aims as a warmongering neocon. 




did the bush neocons fail to get the iraq and afghan wars started? 




why, then, should be assume, as alexander and pepe do, that hillary clinton cannot override any pentagon reluctance and get a war with syria started, regardless of the enhanced difficulties presented by the presence of russia? 




obama was prepared to go to war with syria in august, 2013. while russia was not present at the time to make that a more difficult proposition, it proves that the us is spoiling for war with syria. the three unsc resolutions submitted by the us early on with chapter 7 language in them to justify such a war were only vetoed by russia and china, burned on libya. they prove the us goal is war with syria. 




the us is not going to back down just because russia presents a greater difficulty. many in the beltway really believe that if the us attacks, russia will back down. they are probably wrong, but it will be a little late to find out once the war starts. 




for another thing, the notion that doubling down on supplying weapons such as manpads to the insurgents will change the situation is ridiculous <u+2013> and the pentagon will inform her of that, too. which leaves her with only one option: a direct us/nato attack on syria. 




short of a straight-up pentagon revolt, clinton can and probably will start a war with syria and russia.
why hillary won<u+2019>t unleash wwiii
shorty