Jill Stein: Hillary Clinton's Declared Syria Policy Could Start a Nuclear War

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
a reply to: Byrd

Shouldn't the Syrian government decide who flys in their own sovereign territory? With the allies we have currently killing civilians in Yemen we have no moral leg to stand on and the usa has propped up worse dictators than assad.
Russia is invited to help a legitimate government fight a mostly foreign sponsored conflict.
Why would the western powers mainly America impose a no fly zone if not to start a major war with Russia?

originally posted by: Byrd
So.

Did anyone go look up what this dangerous policy of Clinton's would be? I did. There's two parts:

* NO American ground troops.
* Enforce a no-fly zone.

That's it. Period.

Perhaps Dr. Stein can explain more clearly how not allowing American ground troops into Syria and enforcing a no-fly zone with our allies starts a nuclear war.

news story referencing Trump & Clinton approach to Syria

That boat already sailed when Russia set up their own no-fly zone.

The difference being they have integrated air defence already on the ground. "Creating" a no-fly zone means preemptively attacking those sites, ideally with Apaches or imo, a novel A-10 mission. RU countermeasures against this or SF insure there will be a hot face-to-face conflict with US forces.

The End.

originally posted by: Throes
You have some reading to do then.. start here.. of course this is all opinion and theory..

www.haaretz.com...

McCain thinks it can be done without war. However, Gen. Dundord's stance is that implementing the no fly zone today would lead to war with Russia and Syria.

Either way, Johnson/Stein are the only choices here if you want the U.S. to stop meddling in regime change.

We're seeing opinion and theory all over the map. I'd like to see evidence of something recent like "I will send bombers into Russia and take out their weapons facilities" or "I will carpet-bomb Moscow" or "the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime, to prevent them from this humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Aleppo." (this last one was Donald Trump speaking earlier this month, if you didn't know.)

I think that if you're making a bold statement like that, you should be able to back it up with recent statements from the candidates - otherwise it would appear that it's just fear-mongering.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
That boat already sailed when Russia set up their own no-fly zone.

The difference being they have integrated air defence already on the ground. "Creating" a no-fly zone means preemptively attacking those sites, ideally with Apaches or imo, a novel A-10 mission. RU countermeasures against this or SF insure there will be a hot face-to-face conflict with US forces.

That's if America goes it alone, and I don't think she's going to do that. However, you do make an interesting point there that Stein certainly didn't.

It's a disgrace they dont let the other candidates enter the debates! Jill Stein has more common sense than both the two evil genies running.

a reply to: Byrd

Enforcing a no-fly zone means direct conflict with both Russia and the People's Republic of China. For a no-fly zone to work, all external national parties must be on board. Both Russian and PRChinese military authorities have stated without reserve that Clinton's intention to force and enforce a no-fly zone means war.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Greggers

Sadly Stein is not. I'm still voting for her though.

Stein is not on the ballot in all fifty states. HOWEVER, the combination of states where she is on the ballot and states where she is an official write-in candidate would be enough for her to win if she carried all of the states where she is on the ballot or is a registered write-in candidate.

a reply to: Kapriti

Thanks I was wondering if that's the case. Is good to know.