Robert Parry - thinks Hillary is more likely to unleash a nuclear war than Trump.
Hillary's militaristic speech yesterday, basically a "mental health indictment" of Donald Trump, according to Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed on CBS Early show this morning. Goldberg, national correspondent for The Atlantic, also noted that it is unusual to "go nuclear" as Clinton did so early in the race. (He compared Hillary's speech to the 1964 'Daisy' ad run by LBJ showing a little girl picking daisies then a nuclear explosion in the background - attesting to why Barry Goldwater was unqualified to hold office).
But is Hillary's over the top indictment really true? I mean, not in the sense the Donald is 'all over the map' with his positions, but rather more likely than her to resort to punching in the nuclear codes.
Robert Parry, a blogger on smirkingchimp.com doesn't believe so, e.g.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/67484/the-bigger-nuclear-risk-trump-or-Clinton
As Parry notes:
"Hillary Clinton made a strong case for why handing the nuclear codes over to a President Donald Trump would be a scary idea, but there may be equal or even greater reason to fear turning them over to her. In perhaps the most likely area where nuclear war could break out – along Russia’s borders – Clinton comes across as the more belligerent of the two.
In Clinton’s world view, President Vladimir Putin, who has been elected multiple times and has approval ratings around 80 percent, is nothing more than a “dictator” who is engaged in “aggression” that threatens NATO following the U.S.-backed “regime change” in Ukraine.
“Moscow has taken aggressive military action in Ukraine, right on NATO’s doorstep,” she declared. But stop for a second and think about what Clinton said: she sees Russia responding to an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine – which installed a virulently anti-Russian regime on Russia’s border – as Moscow acting aggressively “on NATO’s doorstep.”
That’s the same NATO, whose job it was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union, that — following the Soviet Union’s collapse — added country after country right up to Russia’s border. In other words, NATO muscled its way into Russia’s face and has announced plans to incorporate Ukraine as well, but when Russia reacts, it’s the one doing the provoking.
Clinton’s neoconservative interpretation of what’s happening in Eastern Europe is so upside-down and inside-out that it could ultimately become the flashpoint for a nuclear war between Russia and the West.
While she sees Russia as the “aggressor” against NATO, the Russians see NATO moving troops up to its borders and watch the deployment of anti-ballistic-missile systems in Romania and Poland, thus making a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia more feasible. Russia has made clear that it views these military deployments, just kilometers from major Russian cities, as an existential threat."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers can read the entire article at the above link, and may also wish to read my past posts on the State Dept. Neocons and their overthrow of Viktor Yanukovich in the Ukraine and all the problems ensuing (with HRC neocon surrogate Victoria Nuland) in 2014:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/putin-is-acting-rationally-col-lawrence.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/news-from-outside-neoliberal-media.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/obama-russia-is-regional-power-and.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-game-theory-perspective-on-ukraine.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/chrystia-freeland-blows-it-on-russia.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/geopolitical-chess-and-what-obama-and.html
----------------------------------
See also this Patrick L. Smith article:
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/04/we_cant_have_more_of_the_same_the_very_real_dangers_of_hillary_clintons_foreign_policy/
No comments:
Post a Comment