The Las Vegas presidential debate - an impression

[lo yeeOn]

In Las Vegas, I was left with a big impression that Hillary was more
eager to move into Syria and oust Assad - at any cost - than to clean
up ISIS in Iraq.

Her plan is clearly to leave the devastated Mosul of Iraq behind while
our military resources will face off with Putin's forces in Syria.

I see her reasoning there - even as she isn't admitting it to the
American people:

1) The neocons have already accomplished its regime change goal of
cleansing Iraq of the Baath party and of decimating Iraq's Sunni
power.

2) But Iraq was just one of several Middle East countries the PNAC
(Project of the New American Century) has envisioned as a target
to destroy. The Assad government of Syria has always been one of
those "evil" ones the neocons want to overthrow.

The Neoconservative Hit List: Iraq, Libya and now Syria?
A Plan for Global US Military Supremacy By Steven MacMillan
09.10.2014
http://m.journal-neo.org/2014/10/09/the-neoconservative-hit-list-iraq-libya-and-now-syria-a-plan-for-global-u-s-military-supremacy/

3) The neocons (through the State Department) have tried very hard
to finish off Assad in the last 5 years; but they haven't been
able to make much progress in that front due to Russia's decision
to stop the neocons in the way of making regime change around the
world.

4) But it doesn't mean that the neocons have just walked away from
their project PNAC, even though it has caused more than 400,000
Syrian people to be killed and millions more homeless.

5) For the neocons, taking out Syria is necessary to defeat Iran.
Syria is in the way to taking down Iran. So, of course,
Hillary's president is all about ousting Assad.

One conclusion is that Washington doesn't really think ISIS is a
significant enemy to fight. That's why, on one hand, it has worked
with ISIS fighters and called them ours with the euphemist term of
"moderate rebels". And on another, it just runs away from whatever
commitment they have announced in great fanfare.

A second conclusion is that Washington never cares about the mess it
has left in the countries it has invaded or assasulted. Just look at
Iraq and Libya. The reconstruction program in Afghanistan was also a
farce. It has cost us tens of billions, if not more. But it has only
fattened Americans such as Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby, Richard
Blum.

Thus, the so-called "hot-spot" issues at the presidential debate was
distortedly framed. Washington created those "hot-spot" issues and
then kept a kind of low intensity warfare going in the region to
justify its "decades-long" "war on terror" to enable it to expand its
regime-change roadmap to more and more countries.

All these are at the expense of the people of the countries they
target, including many women, children, and elderly, who together form
the vast majority of Washington's victims.

Finally, I find Hillary totally unconvincing when she contrived to
stay the course on her plan to impose a no-fly zone in Syria. She
said something to the effect that "we can negotiate with Russia to
convince them it is in their interests to let us impose the no-fly
zone" she wants. "It will take time...", she said.

What she wasn't saying is that she didn't even believe what she was
saying. But I think she knows what her neocon masters want, which is
to oust Assad, even at the cost of getting in a fight with Russia on
Syria and move our "war on terror" to the next target (more worthy to
them).

lo yeeOn

[lo yeeOn]

Post by lo yeeOn

Post by lo yeeOn
In Las Vegas, I was left with a big impression that Hillary was more
eager to move into Syria and oust Assad - at any cost - than to clean
up ISIS in Iraq.
Her plan is clearly to leave the devastated Mosul of Iraq behind while
our military resources will face off with Putin's forces in Syria.
I see her reasoning there - even as she isn't admitting it to the
1) The neocons have already accomplished their regime change goal of
cleansing Iraq of the Baath party and of decimating Iraq's Sunni
power.
2) But Iraq was just one of several Middle East countries the PNAC
(Project of the New American Century) has envisioned as targets
to destroy. The Assad government of Syria has always been one of
those "evil" ones the neocons want to overthrow.
The Neoconservative Hit List: Iraq, Libya and now Syria?
A Plan for Global US Military Supremacy By Steven MacMillan
09.10.2014

http://m.journal-neo.org/2014/10/09/the-neoconservative-hit-list-iraq-libya-and-now-syria-a-plan-for-global-u-s-military-supremacy/

Post by lo yeeOn
3) The neocons (through the State Department) have tried very hard
to finish off Assad in the last 5 years; but they haven't been
able to make much progress on that front due to Russia's decision
to stop the neocons in the process of making regime change around
the world.
4) But it doesn't mean that the neocons have just walked away from
their project PNAC, even though it has caused more than 400,000
Syrian people to be killed and millions more homeless.
5) For the neocons, taking out Syria is necessary to defeat Iran.
Syria is in the way to taking down Iran. So, of course,
Hillary's presidency will be all about ousting Assad.

Wesley Clark walked into Wolfowitz's office shortly after the first Gulf War.

https://books.google.com/books?id=WpPoBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=%22Throughout+my+military+career,+the+Soviets+had+been+the+factor%22&source=bl&ots=ZVYSA6RCfv&sig=Myhf0oidHOP8KdHdrm4Tea1basI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihlKz1luvPAhXJdz4KHUi2B44Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Throughout%20my%20military%20career%2C%20the%20Soviets%20had%20been%20the%20factor%22&f=false

Post by lo yeeOn
"Still, we did learn one thing," Wolfowitz continued. "We learned that
we can intervene militarily in the region with impunity, and the Soviets
won't do a thing to stop us."
Throughout my military career, the Soviets had been the factor - our major
concern and potential adversary. Everything we did was measured against the
Soviets. It was a huge shift, I thought, if they were no longer a factor.
"And," Wolfowitz continued, "we've got about five to ten years to
take out these old Soviet `surrogate' regimes: Iraq, Syria, and the
rest" before the next superpower comes along to challenge us in the
region."
Here was a BIG IDEA. "You mean, use force? Attack?" I asked.
"Well, if necessary," he said.
"And only five to ten years?" I probed. Wolfowitz was making it sound as
if we were going to war again, soon.
"Well, no one knows, maybe more than that," he offered.
"And the next superpower, you're thinking, China?" I wanted to draw him
out some more.
"Could be..." he replied. And after a few personal pleasantries
the conversation trailed off. I excused myself and walked out.
American forces would no longer be used just as a deterrent, but offensively
to reshape the Middle East. That would be the focus: the Middle East, and,
possibly, war."
Looks like the case against Syria was determined long ago. BTW, Clark is not
a neo-con. He had presented in his book some good ideas.

Post by lo yeeOn
One conclusion is that Washington doesn't really think ISIS is a
significant enemy to fight. That's why, on one hand, it has worked
with ISIS fighters and called them ours with the euphemist term of
"moderate rebels". And on another, it just runs away from whatever
commitment it has previously announced with great fanfare.

. . .

Yes, lt, it does seem like the case against Syria was determined long
ago, as you said. It has nothing to do with Assad's rule. It has to
do with geopolitics and US dominance of the world. By all accounts,
Assad has been protecting many minorities in Syria: foremost the
Alawis, and then the Christians, the Kurds, and the secular
population. But Hillary made him look like he was killing his own
people. ...

I don't know whether Wesley Clark will participate in another war to
kill people. But he led the bombing of Yugoslavia for months in 1999.
In doing that he provided the necessary service to his neocon masters
to destroy one of Russia's long time allies. According to your quote,
Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues saw that the Russians would not do
anything to stop them but let them "do anything militarily with
impunity" in region previously under the Soviet influence.

Unfortunately for these neocons, that was a different time. It was
the time of Yeltsin - very much perceived by the Russians as a traitor
today.

It's true that the bombing of Yugoslavia coincided with the emergence
of the PNAC as a new US foreign policy. But first, wars of aggression
have huge costs, even without active opposition from a military power
like Russia. Second, Russia has learned something about the Yeltsin
era and they aren't fools. That means that the neocons' PNAC that was
put together in the late 1990s is getting harder and harder to be
carried out.

Notice that it is been 15 years since 9/11 and the Afghan war. And
it's been 5 years since Washington murdered Qaddafi and put Libya into
a state of chaos. Of course, Iraq and Syria are in convulsion. So,
the PNAC is in a very unsettled state because Wolfowitz and many of
his powerful allies are still aspiring to pursue their goal; and yet
the world has changed extensively. Russia is not going to let
Washington intervene militarily against its own interests with
impunity. And America is getting so poor that someone like Trump was
in a position to overthrow the Bush dynasty. So, Hillary might be
ready to provide more regime change services for her neocon masters,
but things will only get worse, not better, if war is our principal
occupation.

lo yeeOn