Stan Jacox
We can see it, the Russians see it, Assad sees it.....but those in charge in the US have talked themselves into the idea of destroying all civilization is a step towards world domination while thinking there is no risk to themselves. Why would there be risk, in the last 100 wars, business just got better and the rich became wealthier. Americans all believe wars are something done to other people in strange lands that deserve it and about which they know nothing about other than the non-stop propaganda that tells of horrible leaders, all cousins of Hitler. History is not relevant, each firmly believes the world is saved by the US they are not appreciated for the expense of shutting down bad governments and killing the bad people, by the millions. So do not look for wisdom or rational thought driving Americans to rise up and demand a change of course. If war comes to the US, only then would a large number of people get the concept that war is not a good thing. Russia and China know this, having war visit the US would change everything. So if either of those countries are attacked, they will make sure the people get the message, and removal of power and use of electronic money in the first few hours are essential elements in closing down a war very quickly.
No one has to invade the US to cause the US people to demand an end of a war. Look how they gave up all rights and turned themselves into a very fearful and demoralized country that is still not able to make a decision that is not based on irrational fear, 15 years after what really was a minor disruption of 3 buildings being attacked by 17 hijackers. A million people have died thus far and the US still has not retaliated enough. What happens with a really big crisis visits the US like shutting off the internet, power and transportation by unseen remote forces. Civil war will result in days.
But before someone fights back or even attempts to talk sensibly to the US we have to deal with a spoiled child's thinking who just happens to have a very powerful highly aggressive army.
If war comes, will the allies really volunteer to be the targets. How many NATO countries are really as crazy aggressive as the neocons in Washington? A few in the Baltic and Poland. That is it. More and more Europeans are starting to discuss the fact that they will be the first to be wiped off the earth and into the dustbin of history, by design of US foreign policy and military planning. Romania might point to pride that the great US smiled on them and gave them "security" from a nonexistent threat with a missile system that protects not one of them but assures not a single Romania survives if a neocon in Washington, who never heard of Romania before, gets even more ambitious. The UK has signed its own death warrant by moving to appear to be a nuclear superpower with spending a Trillion on upgrading Trident. For what enemy? For egos of a few politicians who want to appear to be a major player on the world stage. By appearing to be a bigger threat than it is, the UK ends existence. And Germany. And 157 other countries that allowed the US to sacrifice the people for the illusion of security.
War is inevitable because the people who control US policy, and by extension, of every country aligned with the US, are passionate about world domination and see only China and Russia standing in the way. Clinton is one of them. Obama has been the most aggressive president in history but pales next to the lust for violence of Clinton.
Buckle up, it is going to be a bumpy ride, and there is nothing mere citizens of any of these countries can anything about it. The ones, the only ones, oblivious to the danger are Americans. No reporter has even brought up questions about foreign policy, no one cares and no one knows.
For reference, here is George Ades original post:
Collision Course.
With the collapse of even the pretence of military cooperation between the US and Russia in Syria and with the imminent liberation of Aleppo from the US backed mercenaries by the Russian led alliance, it is now becoming obvious to the West that if they want the job done they would have to get their own hands dirty.
At a time when the US has called a meeting of its closer allies (UK, France, Germany and Italy) to discuss what their next move in Syria will be, the Russians are reinforcing their defences on their military base in Tartus against aerial attacks.
Six batteries of S-300VM missiles either have already or are being sent to Syria to serve as a shield against aircraft and Tomahawks, neither of which the "jihadists" posses. These systems are designed specifically to counter aerial attacks from organised, advanced militaries like those of the US and its European minions.
The Eastern Mediterranean now plays host to the US 6th Fleet, a large number of Russian ships and an assortment of NATO ships from European countries that are there on the pretext of stemming the refugee and immigrant flows into Europe. Once missiles start flying from these ships towards land based targets, these floating platforms automatically become legitimate targets too.
It's now well past the time for isolated military actions by the US that could be claimed to be "mistakes". If they want to maintain a military presence and a say in Syria, it's time for the big guns and direct confrontation with Russia.
Can there possibly be an under the table agreement between these two superpowers to contain the conflict in Syria alone, or will new fronts be opened in the Black Sea where NATO has accumulated a significant Naval force? And what of the Baltics, will they be kept out of this? I certainly doubt it. Unless the Europeans manage to talk some sense into the American Hawks,to me it looks like an all out war, between the US-led West and Russia and its allies, will be unavoidable. .
