Media Silent as House Passes Resolution for Syrian No-Fly Zone — Provoking War with Russia

Soon after the presidential election, key warmongers in Congress began formulating plans to make increased conflict a near certainty, complete with the kind of propaganda peddled before the Iraq attack. While everyone was distracted by the election of Trump, six representatives took advantage of the lame-duck session and suspended “normal rules” to bring us H.R. 5732.

Most strikingly, the resolution calls for evaluating and developing plans for the United States to impose a “no fly zone” inside Syria, a sovereign nation, an act of war that also would violate international law as an act of aggression. It also could put the U.S. military in the position of shooting down Russian aircraft.”

Media Silent as House Passes Resolution for Syrian No-Fly Zone — Provoking War with Russia

From the relevant section 303 of the legislation:

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

www.congress.gov...-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

Take note also of this:

The suspension of rules procedure is supposed to be used for “non-controversial” bills such as naming Post Offices, but this small group of lawmakers used it to pass a drastically important bill. The blatant abuse of power shows the desperation in the neocon ranks.

Note also that some house republicans voted yes on this resolution as well, so it's not all the democrats fault. Just mostly.

But regardless, it just brings us one step closer to WW3. The Russians have stated in no uncertain terms that electing Trump just averted WW3, knowing that the US imposing a no fly zone in Syria would preclude the Russians as well from flying inside Syria, when Assad himself invited the Russian participation.

And maybe this is how. They are no doubt very aware of this bill, and were extremely vocal about it before it was even out of the gate. Now that it has passed the House, that still leaves the Senate and President, but given the underhanded nature, again (big surprise, *sigh*) of how this was passed, it just leaves me wondering if this bill is going to get fast-tracked through the Senate and passed on to Obama for him to sign the final nail in the coffin of humanity.

Congress was already warned by the military that imposing a no fly zone over Syria would mean going to war against Russia. The passage of this bill mandates even more serious consideration of the idea, complete with in depth assessments due within 90 days of passing. So the question remains if they could even get this done before Obama leaves office on January 19th-20th.

In a currently liberal White House? Hey baby, with a will there is always a way.

And indeed it may take Trump to save the day. This is no doubt going to infuriate Putin, let alone if it actually ends up passing the Senate. Because I don't think anyone has any doubts what happens after that. Obama will likely sign it.

So let's say in a worst case it does pass, and the fly zone is imposed. Putin calls up China, and together they fly in vast formations over Syria deliberately, out numbering and overpowering any and all available US aircraft. I'd like to see what the warmongers would do in that case. Call in British, Canadian and Australian aircraft probably. And maybe call in even more NATO aircraft.

The stage is set. Humanity and planet earth- you LOSE.

All these distractions everyone missed this news there is also by no-coincidence a Bildeberg meeting in Chantilly VA

I don't know, assessment the potential risk and logistics of a no fly zone does not sound to me like impose a no fly zone immediately.

Dumb ideas may be obviously dumb, but burecracy may still demand a report stating why.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Hopefully it dies in the senate, I get the feeling Obama would sign it.

This is very serious. A no-fly zone was used and abused in Libya to execute regime change, via Nato attacking government forces, not allowing government forces to have the upper hand through air superiority, and supplying the opposition with weapons, funds, and training. The West has been trying to do this in Syria since 2013 at least, but the UN, China, Arab League, and Russia won't go for it due to the abuse of the Chapter VII resolution in Libya. It would probably have to be done illegally, or unilaterally without UNSC approval. Without such approval and without abstention/non veto by Russia and China, it would be an act of war and not carry legitimacy globally. As people have noted on this thread, unlike Libya in Syria Russia is there by invite of the government, and is currently engaging the opposition militants. The no-fly zone would necessarily put is in conflict with Russia. What are these people thinking?

True, but it's very worrisome.

originally posted by: Indigent
I don't know, assessment the potential risk and logistics of a no fly zone does not sound to me like impose a no fly zone immediately.

Dumb ideas may be obviously dumb, but burecracy may still demand a report stating why.

Yeah, but see, the fact that the military already warned congress that a no fly zone means going to war with Russia, and the fact that even in the face of that they still passed it, just shows the extent to which they are willing to go to further escalate this thing into oblivion. It truly is political madness.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

A way to punish people for voting Trump? IDK, but the whole regime change, invading sovereign countries, etc. will not end well. Let's hope there is some sanity between the senate and white house. The general that was testifying before congress made it clear that it would bring us to war with Russia. Russia has stated before that if we attacked with conventional weapons, because of the advanced nature of our strike capabilities they would use nuclear weapons.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Yep, a no-fly-zone means 2 options, we shoot down Russian jets which will cause ww3, or we enact but not uphold something militarily. Our ME allies will instantly lose confidence in us, not to mention the NATO blowback. A no-fly-zone is a no-win.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

So how long until Trump can reverse this? He's obviously been openly opposed to it.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

This is very serious. A no-fly zone was used and abused in Libya to execute regime change, via Nato attacking government forces, not allowing government forces to have the upper hand through air superiority, and supplying the opposition with weapons, funds, and training. The West has been trying to do this since 2013 at least, but the UN, China, Arab League, and Russia won't go for it due to the abuse of the Chapter VII resolution in Libya. It would probably have to be done illegally, or unilaterally without UNSC approval. Without such approval and abstention by Russia and China, it would be an act of war and not carry legitimacy globally.

Bingo, excellent answer my friend. And obviously Russia is well aware of those abuses of the no fly zone in Libya. He is already three chess moves ahead, and knows what this means.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

We clearly have lunatics in the halls of government who have no care for what this means for the rest of humanity. Honestly the only people on the face of the earth who would actively want to start WW3 are pure psychopaths who believe that depopulation is a necessary evil.

This much can be seen from actively funding, arming, and training ISIS as a proxy army used to unleash hell upon whoever is in the way, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen (Al Qaeda is the old version) also around the world with random terror attacks.

What concerns me about these neo-con liberals is that they have actually brainwashed their voter base into thinking that this is necessary. You know to help the people of Syria, because our foreign policy is based in pure benevolence.

I remember seeing DNC leaders screaming for war with Russia, most notably that pervert Biden. Having been vocally against the Nazi Bush regime, I am flabbergasted, by the liberals who were on the same side, but once Obama took office drone striking countries and toppling Gaddhafi was fair game and merited him a Nobel peace prize.

What a crazy world it is when our best chance of avoiding WW3 is in Trumps hands, assuming we miraculously make it to Jan 20.

a reply to: elementalgrove

sorry had erronous info had to delete

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: TrueAmerican

So how long until Trump can reverse this? He's obviously been openly opposed to it.

Trump is a total wild card at this point. There is no telling. He is prone to first assess the situation with his advisors. I wouldn't make a single bet, at all, about what he might, or might not, do at this point regarding anything.

I have the feeling that this bill was pre planned and all the votes lined up so that when Hillary won the election things could be put in motion very quickly, only one problem, Hillary didn`t win.
I guess things were already past the point of no return so they carried out the plan even though Hillary lost.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

The situation is definitely less hostile with Trump making the calls. Not that it's completely defused, but it seems there is much more willingness for cooperation with Trump. We should be leaving Syria, not carrying on. There is no good reason at all for us to be there.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

It will be an interesting sell most of the world knows this is about supporting ISIS regime change and eventually taking out Iran and setting up greater Israel.

I agree with everything, except that this is a "liberal" thing and that Trump is going to stop it. I don't think that he is a real anti-establishment, anti-war candidate. Don't fool yourself. He already has postured about torturing people, and ending cooperation with Iran, etc.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I was concerned they might try to float this in order to put war into play and attempt to suspend transition. When is the best time to start a war that doesn't effect consumer spending? Early to mid January in a transition year. Hope for the best, but damn well prepare for the worst.

A no-fly zone in Syria is an act of war.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Vector99

Or a third option that everyone is so quick to forget. We negotiate with Russia and Syria. Like a certain former presidential candidate wanted.