Lunatics in Washington Want Direct Confrontation with Russia
Russia’s sovereign independence sticks in Washington’s craw, longterm US policy determined to replace it with governance it controls – even at the risk of WW III.
Putin’s most responsible policies are bashed, notably his forthright efforts to end conflicts in Ukraine and Syria diplomatically – now his real war on terrorism, polar opposite Washington’s phony one, a pretext for ravaging one country after another.
Irresponsible propaganda war against him rages. Deputy State Department spokesman Mark Toner lied saying the Obama administration “welcome(s) a constructive role for Russia if it takes the fight to ISIS” – precisely what it’s doing as Toner knows.
Instead of acknowledging and praising its effort, he lied saying “we’ve not seen that that’s the case. We’ve seen no indication that they’re actually hitting ISIL targets.”
He persists in the Big Lie about Moscow targeting nonexistent anti-Assad moderates. Sergey Lavrov explained clearly what Russia has been doing for the past week, saying if it walks and talks and squawks like a terrorist, it’s a terrorist vital to eliminate – to keep its danger from spreading.
Lunatics like presidential aspirant Carly Fiorina wants Washington enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria – even if it means shooting down Russian aircraft, claiming:
“Russian jets have been basically conducting dangerous and unpredictable maneuvers around our (sic) water and our (sic) borders and our (sic) territory.”
Does she means planet earth, its oceans, airspace and outer space? Does she consider Russian territory “ours?”
Would anyone want this woman’s finger on the nuclear trigger? Would you trust her with safeguarding life on earth? Would we avoid WW III with her in the White House?
Marco Rubio supports establishing so-called safe and no-fly zones in Syria – enforcing them “against anyone who would dare intrude on” them, including Russia. He’s willing to risk nuclear war to enforce US policy.
Last May, Ben Carson said he would not rule out military confrontation with Russia. “I would do whatever is necessary,” he said.
Earlier, Ted Cruz said he’d ramp up tensions with Russia and China if he became America’s commander-in-chief – risking nuclear war to pursue America’s hegemonic agenda.
All Republican and Democrat candidates support endless US wars of aggression. All might risk direct confrontation with Russia. Don’t let Trump’s rhetoric fool you, saying “(l)et Russia fight ISIS.”
Separately, he calls himself “the most militaristic” presidential aspirant. Hillary Clinton supports establishing safe and no-fly zones in Syria.
Bernie Sanders is militantly anti-Russian. “The entire world has got to stand up to Putin,” he blustered. Would he risk direct confrontation, possible nuclear war?
In a Financial Times op-ed, former Carter administration national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski irresponsibly said Russia “launched air attacks at Syrian elements that are sponsored, trained and equipped by the Americans, inflicting damage and causing casualties.”
“At best, it was a display of Russian military incompetence; at worst, evidence of a dangerous desire to highlight American political impotence.”
Washington has “only one real option,” he claimed, to protect its regional interests – “to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets.”
He stopped short of explaining they’re ISIS and other imported terrorists, not moderate Syrian opponents, one of many Big Lies about Obama’s war, systematically destroying another country. Putin wants Syria saved. He wants the scourge of terrorism eliminated.
Instead of applauding his righteous efforts, Brzezinski urged “prompt US retaliation.” Is he suggesting possible nuclear war?
He’s one of many neocon lunatics infesting Washington. His call for “strategic boldness” sounds like a declaration of war, madness at a time cools heads are desperately needed.