Thread: The race war
View Single Post
Old 09-11-2016, 12:36 AM   #16
vancity eagle
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,492
Likes: 4,419 (2,496 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea View Post
In 2011, though it was ‘business as usual’ for the neocon/liberal-left alliance as a ‘nice’ Democrat administration helped destroy Libya - the country which had the highest living standards in Africa - and whose ‘tyrannical’ government provided free health care, education, and electricity to all of its citizens.

Again, this was a military assault which was pushed by neocons, the same crowd who’d lobbied for war against Yugoslavia and Iraq. Once again the liberal-left didn’t seem to notice, or indeed to care, who was behind it.

The toppling of Muammar Gaddafi (the latest neocon-designated ‘New Hitler’ who was hell-bent on ‘genocide’), would lead to a more democratic Libya with major advances in human rights, liberal-leftists assured us. In fact, the NATO attack on Libya turned the country into a failed state and a haven for jihadists.

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State in 2011, played a prominent role in the destruction of Libya - so much so that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, in a recent interview with John Pilger, has labelled it 'Hillary’s war.'

But Libya has been quietly forgotten during the Presidential election campaign, as indeed has the Iraq war.

Liberal-leftists who couldn’t bear the sight of George W. Bush are lining up with pro-Iraq war hawks to try and get HRC elected.

Film-maker Michael Moore, who made the fiercely anti-Bush documentary, Fahrenheit 9-11, finds himself on the same side as Bush's speechwriter David Frum and Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century. That would have seemed unthinkable a few years back, but it’s happening today, folks.

Why are America’s liberal-left doing this? It’s not as if Trump or Clinton are the only options: Dr Jill Stein's policies on social justice, war and peace, and climate change are far more progressive than Clinton’s. Why, instead of backing Stein, are they enabling Washington’s war lobby again, just as they did in 1999 and in 2011 during the bombing of Libya? Don't they ever learn their lesson? How naive are liberals to be fooled by the sudden neo-con concern for 'women's rights' and the rights of immigrants and gay people?

Make no mistake, the PNAC crowd are backing Clinton, not because they are appalled at sexist/racist or politically incorrect statements made by Donald Trump, but because they believe HRC will be the candidate who is more likely to continue the policy of endless war. More specifically, in regards to Syria, they want a US President who will prioritize on toppling the secular government of President Assad - not defeating ISIS. Trump’s great 'crime' in their eyes is that he does want to prioritize on ISIS - and horror of horrors - to work with Russia to defeat terrorism.

As America goes to the polls today, the stakes could not be higher. Clinton’s support for the imposition of a No-Fly Zone against Russian and Syrian aircraft risks starting World War Three, and the deaths of potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

Is that what the ‘progressives’ who are lining up with the destroyers of Iraq really want?

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/365792-hi...on-neocons-us/
There are definately PNAC guys backing Trump.

John Bolton
Michael Ledeen
James Woolsey (trumps foreign policy team former CIA director)
Frank Gaffney
Ed Feulner. (Trump transition team)
Edwin Meese (Trump transition team)
Steve Forbes

It would appear more are backing Hillary but to me it's all part of the show.

Last edited by vancity eagle; 09-11-2016 at 01:28 AM.
vancity eagle is offline   Reply With Quote