A Politician is a Fellow Who Will Lay Down “Your” Life for His Country! (VIDEO)

A Politician is a Fellow Who Will Lay Down “Your” Life for His Country! (VIDEO) | USA-Empire-Imperial-War | Military Multimedia Politics War Propaganda

“Our boys were sent off to die with beautiful ideals painted in front of them. No one told them that dollars and cents were the real reason they were marching off to kill and die.” General Smedley Butler

Did you ever notice that the politicians that talk much of war are those who have never been to war.

Or have you noticed that those who are to serve “We the People” in Congress are so apt to send your men and women to fight unconstitutional wars, but for some reason or another it does not apply to their own (Matthew 23:3).

As a matter of fact, it has been said that the Vietnam War ended when the children of those who represented us were pulled up for the draft.

Furthermore, to add insult to injury, it seems that trees take precedent over human life.  When you go to Washington D.C., you see trees with fences around them that state “Tree protection: KEEP OUT! Do Not Enter.  The enclosed area is a tree root protection zone. Fence must remain closed at all times.”  They are simply protecting trees from the people (Romans 1:28).

What you do not see is the Vietnam Wall (my cousin was killed in Vietnam) 20 yards behind this sign.  Fifty-eight thousand, three hundred and eighteen were killed (Amos 4:10).

With the last 100 years of exposing the corruption of the American politician, you would think that Americans would understand that they CANNOT trust the Judases who they are led to believe actually work for the people of this country (Luke 22:48).  Especially, when it comes to war.

In contrast, how was it that during the Revolutionary War, the Forefathers thought it their duty to fight the wars in which they believed were worth fighting, which established our Constitutional Republic.

It was said of George Washington, “First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

Why first in the hearts of his countrymen? Because he led by example.  He did not expect others to take his place for such a worthy cause.

Remember, there is The Lord’s Wars and that of man’s wars. One is righteous and the other is not (Numbers 21:14).

A post recently popped up that will make the next point,

“Before complaining about the fact the American government is involved with another campaign to plunder another country that does not go along with the plans of the new world order.

 You would not have to worry about other countries hating you if you stopped corrupt politicians from inciting America to attack their countries.

Bombing other countries, Launching coups, installing expendable puppet dictators only to send in American forces to establish a military presence.”

Another one read,

“In today’s distorted media landscape, when the U.S. Government calls another nation’s leader a dictator, what they really mean to say is that they’re not a complete pro-USA puppet.”

Just think of this, 94% of Americans do not believe the lying media, Congress has an 11% approval rating, and yet, when they are told what some drummed up foreign country is going to do to us, the people somehow latch onto the fact that they are now telling them the truth. This is the pinnacle of hypocrisy (Romans 1:18).

Gen. Douglas MacArthur said of the United States government back in 1957:

“Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear – kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it. …”

You would think that this is what America was told by the president on Sept. 11, 2001.  It was.

Of course, war is never sold to you in truth.  Remember, the truth is always the first casualty of war (John 8:44).

“By way of deception, thou shalt do war.” Mossad slogan

What of the military–industrial complex (MIC), which is an informal alliance between a nation’s military and the arms industry which supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy.

A driving factor behind this relationship between the government and defense-minded corporations is that both sides benefit—one side from obtaining war weapons, and the other from being paid to supply them. The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it is most prevalent and gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961. In 2011, the United States spent more (in absolute numbers) on its military than the next 13 nations combined.

I suggest that next time a war is being sold to the American people that those who are calling for the war, like our Forefathers, are the first ones to lead the way.

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. –Herman Goering

And to think that 222 years out of 241 years since 1776, Americans have been at war.

And Americans still haven’t figured this out.

Henry Kissinger said of our veterans:

“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

The fact is, the American military are not dumb and stupid.   They just need to recognize who the enemies are, and that comes by knowing what the Law states (Hosea 4:6; 2 Timothy 2:15).

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights! -General Smedley Butler

So, the next time you hear the politicians clamoring for war, if it’s a worthy cause, they should be the first ones to go.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post A Politician is a Fellow Who Will Lay Down “Your” Life for His Country! (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Trump Wants Funding for Iraq and Syria Bases

Trump Wants Funding for Iraq and Syria Bases | us-military-base | Military Sleuth Journal Trump War Propaganda World News

[image: theatlantic.com]

US combat forces came to both countries to stay – flagrantly illegal in Syria, likely approved by pro-Western puppet rule in Iraq, devastating for the people of both countries.

US Operation Inherent Resolve was established to support ISIS and other terrorist groups, not combat the former as claimed. According to its commander General Stephen Townsend:

“The Iraqi government has expressed an interest in having the US forces and coalition forces remain after the defeat of ISIS. Our government is equally interested in that.”

Bashar al-Assad calls US forces in Syria “invaders,” supporting death squads recruited from scores of nations, not combating them, he’s stressed. He, his government, and Syrian people want uninvited foreign forces out of the country.

Earlier, CENTCOM commander General Joseph Votel said US forces will remain in Syria after the battle for Raqqa is over – on the phony pretext of stabilizing the region.

Washington wants northern Syrian territory territory occupied, along with other areas it’s able to gain control over – a scheme risking direct confrontation with Russia and Damascus.

Trump wants congressional funding for US military bases in Iraq and Syria. On July 12, a White House policy statement on the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act expressed concern about lack of “additional requested authority for small-scale construction of temporary facilities that are necessary to meet operational needs and force protection requirements in both Iraq and Syria” – code language for intended US occupation of both countries.

Claiming funds are needed to continue combating ISIS conceals US support for all terrorists operating in both countries.

Endless wars in Iraq and Syria continue because of America’s presence and use of imported death squads as imperial foot soldiers.

Defense Secretary Mattis claiming Washington “wants to win the peace, stabilize the region and militarily pressure Iran” is false on points one and two, outrageously true on Iran.

Longstanding US policy, complicit with Israel, calls for regime change in Damascus and Tehran, pro-Western puppet rule replacing their legitimate governments.

All ongoing US wars reflect naked aggression against sovereign independent countries threatening no one. Iran is high on America’s target list.

Reportedly the Trump administration intends expanding US involvement in Libya, raped and destroyed by Obama and Hillary in 2011, the nation a cauldron of endless violence and chaos.

Greater US involvement would make already nightmarish conditions worse. Reported Pentagon plans involve establishing a permanent US military presence in the country to assure US control.

America’s belligerent presence abroad is nightmarish for affected countries. Wherever it goes militarily, mass slaughter and destruction follow.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Trump Wants Funding for Iraq and Syria Bases appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Will America Attack North Korea?

Will America Attack North Korea? | Donald-Trumps-warning-to-North-Korea | Military Trump US News War Propaganda

(image: Zero Hedge)

War on the Korean peninsula would be catastrophic if launched. Defense Secretary Mattis said it “would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes.”

No precedent exists for trying to destroy a nation’s nuclear capability by military means. The possibility of nukes detonating on the Korean peninsula should deter any country from risking the world’s first nuclear war, assuring losers, not winners.

Trump’s earlier threat about a possible “major, major conflict” with Pyongyang sounded like the ravings of a madman.

His refusal to engage the DPRK diplomatically assures no way of resolving bilateral differences. If surgical strikes are launched, catastrophic full-scale war will likely follow.

On Wednesday, US Forces Korea commander General Vincent Brooks belligerently said America is ready to go to war on North Korea straightaway if ordered.

“Self-restraint, which is a choice, is all that separates armistice and war,” he said. (W)e are able to change our choice when so ordered by our…national leaders. It would be a grave mistake for anyone to believe anything to the contrary.”

White House Deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders declined to explain what Trump may do next, saying:

“We’ve been pretty consistent that we are never going to broadcast next steps, but I don’t have anything further on that right now.”

The Pentagon lied calling Tuesday’s DPRK intermediate-range ballistic missile test an ICBM, explained by Russia’s Defense Ministry.

On Wednesday, Trump talked tough, saying Pyongyang is “behaving in a very, very dangerous manner and something will have to be done about it.”

“We will see what happens. I have some pretty severe things that we are thinking about. That doesn’t mean we are going to do it. I don’t draw red lines.”

During an “emergency” Wednesday Security Council session, called by Washington, neocon UN envoy Nikki Haley threatened North Korea with a military option, saying “(w)e will use (it) if we must…”

Around 25 million South Koreans live within 50 miles of the heavily-fortified DMZ, including 10 million in Seoul, 35 miles from the North Korean border.

If attacked, DPRK artillery, rocket-launchers, and short-range ballistic missiles could inflict enormous damage, along with a devastating human toll.

Nuclear war would be catastrophic, affecting the entire peninsula, China, Russia and Japan.

Are hawkish generals in charge of US warmaking and Trump foolish enough to order the unthinkable?

Millions in East Asia have much to fear from a reckless administration perhaps willing to do anything to achieve its imperial objectives.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Will America Attack North Korea? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Fools for Phony Wars: “America, Love it Or…”

Fools for Phony Wars: "America, Love it Or..." | propaganda-war-on-terror | Military US News War Propaganda

When this writer was 18 I met a really pretty blonde , whose name I still remember, and asked her out on a date. Her name was Maureen and, unlike me, not a college girl. She was a sweet, not terribly bright young lady who lived in a working class neighborhood in Brooklyn, similar to my own. This was during my first year at Brooklyn College and I was having problems with the transition from high school, where I had excelled academically. Brooklyn College in those days was one of the most difficult of the CUNY schools to get into. Lots of very bright kids from all over Brooklyn were there with me. Anyhow, I had gotten a bit of the ‘Military fever’ from the excessive propaganda of the Vietnam War (another of those ‘never declared’ ones since WW2) and how ‘Marines build men’ and all that. Yet, I was not that gung ho to ever consider signing up for a four year tour of duty and wind up in Vietnam. No, my student deferment was intact in the winter of ’68. Instead, I opted out for joining the Marine Reserves, which, in those days, meant to never be sent overseas under any circumstances except perhaps WW3. Looking back, it was the ‘cowards way’ to be a big man while getting out of college for awhile. I showed up at Maureen’s parents’ apartment to pick up my beautiful date. She introduced me to her dad, a bartender and former Marine, who was awaiting me in the living room. When she told him of my plans for the reserves, her old man began lecturing me on the ‘Corps’ and what it meant etc. He spent a good half hour trying to convince me to ditch the reserve idea and go for the full ride. I told him I would think about it  I was serious… he did a hell of a job). It was as we were about to leave that he really turned me off by saying: “Just remember kid, if our president says we need to be there to fight the Commies, then the Marines go! I say ‘America , love it or leave it’ kid. Semper Fi.

Fast forward almost 50 years later, to a street corner in my town in Central Florida. My 85 year old peace activist compadre, John S. and I were standing on our usual corner during rush hour, with signs in hand. My sign read: Save Our Cities: Cut Military Spending 25%, Close Overseas Bases, Bring our Troops Home! John’s sign read: Bush=Obama=Bush. In between the honks for support and a few nasty remarks telling us that we were helping the terrorists and not our troops, we had a visitor. This 30 something guy on a bicycle alongside of his two young children, also on bikes, approached. The first thing he asked me was if I ever served in the armed forces. Before I could answer him, John responded “Yes, I was a Marine. Why is that important?” The guy then rambled on about how we should be supporting our military because it is fighting the crazy terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan (this was before the whole ISIS thing exploded in Syria). I rebutted that if it wasn’t for our, by the way, illegal and immoral invasions of those countries, there wouldn’t be enough terrorists in those countries to fill a baseball stadium. He went on about how he was in Iraq for two tours and it was disgusting how the people there are filthy and lack proper sanitation. “You should see the streets, how filthy they are there.” John countered how he met some German tourists who told him how filthy the streets of NYC were. Then came the quintessential bit of Orwellian fake truth: “We are fighting them there so they don’t come here!” John mentioned collateral damage and its devastating effects. Not even taking a breath or a moment to ponder the question, the guy shot back ” That’s what happens in wars. Innocent people always get hurt or killed.” I looked at his two young children, ages four and six, and asked him how he would react if they became , God forbid, collateral damage? He got really pissed off and took his kids and rode away.

It turns out, from further investigation, that the guy from the street corner was an instructor at Emory Riddle University, where lots of ROTC attend. Great way to get more and more fools for our phony wars!


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Fools for Phony Wars: “America, Love it Or…” appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

‘Very Fine Place’: AG Sessions Visits Guantanamo Detention Camp

‘Very Fine Place’: AG Sessions Visits Guantanamo Detention Camp | american-flag-fence | Government Military Special Interests
(RT) US Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, are visiting the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay – the first such visit under the new administration. They are reportedly accompanied by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

The high-ranking delegation is visiting the camp to get an “up-to-date understanding of current operations,” Ian Prior, a spokesman for the US Department of Justice, said in a statement.

“Recent attacks in Europe and elsewhere confirm that the threat to our nation is immediate and real, and it remains essential that we use every lawful tool available to prevent as many attacks as possible,” Prior said.

While the DOJ did not mention DNI Coats as part of the delegation, a reporter covering Guantanamo for the Miami Herald did, citing “an official at Guantánamo with knowledge of some members of the entourage.”

This is Sessions’ first trip to Guantanamo since he became attorney general. He first visited the facility as a sitting US senator in 2002, and has long been an enthusiastic supporter of the camp, first used by the Bush administration to hold accused terrorists captured in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Sessions has called Guantanamo a “very fine place for holding these kind of dangerous criminals.”

“We’ve spent a lot of money fixing it up,” he told talk show host Hugh Hewitt in a March interview. “And I’m inclined to the view that it remains a perfectly acceptable place. And I think the fact that a lot of the criticisms have just been totally exaggerated.”

Almost 800 people have been detained in the camp over the 15 years of its existence. Nine prisoners have died, and seven of those deaths are believed to be by suicide. Only nine detainees were ever convicted of a crime. Camp Delta, as the facility is officially known, now holds 41 prisoners.

US President Donald Trump has not officially revoked his predecessor’s orders to close Camp Delta. Although the Obama administration ultimately failed to close down the facility due to strong opposition from Congress and the Pentagon, it released 200 detainees over the years.

In January 2015, then-DNI James Clapper reported that 185 of the 647 detainees released from Guantanamo up to that point were either suspected or confirmed of reengaging in “terrorism or insurgent activities.”

This is not the first time an attorney general has visited the camp. Michael Mukasey did so in 2008 and Eric Holder in 2009.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post ‘Very Fine Place’: AG Sessions Visits Guantanamo Detention Camp appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Reckless US Provocation in Chinese Waters

Reckless US Provocation in Chinese Waters | uss-lassen | Military World News

[image: John J. Mike/flickr/CC-BY-2.0]

Imagine the following scenario. One or more Chinese or Russian warships provocatively enter the Gulf of Mexico, or perhaps intrude close to America’s east or west coast, sailing into its territorial waters – after being warned not to.

Washington would likely consider the intrusion an act of war – with full media support. Yet US warships provoke Russia in the Black Sea and China near its Xisha and Nansha Islands repeatedly – showing its own sovereignty matters, no one else’s.

In response to Washington’s latest intrusion, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang responded sharply, saying:

“Under the (phony) pretext of ‘freedom of navigation,’ the US side once again sent a military vessel into China’s territorial waters off the Xisha Islands without (its) approval.”

Washington clearly “violated Chinese law and relevant international law, infringed upon China’s sovereignty, and disrupted the peace, security and order of the relevant waters.”

“China dispatched military vessels and fighter planes in response to warn off the US vessel. (Beijing) is dissatisfied with, and opposed to, the relevant behavior of the US side.”

It’s responsible for another “serious political and military provocation – deliberately stirring up troubles in the South China Sea, as well as running in the opposite direction from countries in the region who aspire for stability, cooperation and development.”

China’s Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian made similar comments.

On Monday Beijing time (Sunday evening in Washington), Trump called Chinese President Xi Jinping over heightening Sino/US tensions.

China Central Television reported Xi saying bilateral relations with America deteriorated since leaders of both countries met in Mar-a-Lago, Florida last April. It quoted Xi saying:

“We attach great importance to the US government’s reaffirmation of the one-China policy, and hope the US side will properly handle the Taiwan problem by adhering to the one-China principle and the three communiques between the two sides.”

A White House statement said “(b)oth leaders reaffirmed their commitment to a denuclearized Korean peninsula. President Trump reiterated his determination to seek more balanced trade relations with America’s trading partner.”

No further details of their conversation were added or explained if Trump got Xi to toughen his pressure on Pyongyang.

Separately, Beijing sharply criticized US imposition of illegal sanctions on China’s Bank of Dandong, Dalian Global Unity Shipping Co., and two Chinese business officials – accused of running front companies for North Korea.

It strongly objected to its announced $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, and Senate Armed Services Committee approval to let US warships regularly sail into Taiwanese ports.

Tensions between both countries are high over the guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem provocatively entering Chinese territorial waters.

In its annual Trafficking in Persons Report to Congress, Trump’s State Department called China among the world’s worst human trafficking offenders, riling Beijing further – the accusation coming from the leading human rights offender on a global scale. It’s deplorable record is unprecedented.

US relations with China and Russia remain dangerously unstable, compounded by Trump’s unpredictability and advice gotten by neocons and hawkish generals infesting his administration – a combustable mix, risking almost anything.

Hoped for improved US relations with Russia and April bromance with China seem light years away in light of hostile Trump administration actions against both countries.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Reckless US Provocation in Chinese Waters appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Phony AUMF Justification for US Military Operations

Phony AUMF Justification for US Military Operations | us-army-military | Military US News War Propaganda

[image: Jason Hull/U.S. Army]

On September 14, 2011, congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), giving the president power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against parties involved in the 9/11 attacks, flagrantly violated international and constitutional law.

Security Council members alone may authorize one country attacking another – permitted only in self-defense, never preemptively the way America goes to war, always against nations threatening no one post-WW II.

Washington operate illegally in all its war theaters, waging naked aggression, the highest of high crimes.

Monday at the National Press Club, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph (“fighting Joe”) Dunford was asked “(w)hat’s the legal justification for targeting Syrian government forces?”

He responded, saying “(w)e are there and have legal justification under the Authorization for Use of Military Force. We are prosecuting a campaign against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria.”

Fact: The proper question should have been what gives America the right to violate international and constitutional law in Syria and all its other war theaters?

Fact: No legal justification exists for US military operations anywhere. The nation wasn’t attacked. It’s not threatened. Its wars on other nations are flagrant acts of aggression.

Fact: America supports ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. No campaign against them exists.

According to Law Professor Francis Boyle, the AUMF “cannot possibly be used to justify targeting the Syrian government. Those attacks are…clearly illegal and impeachable.”

“If we care about the rule of law, the most striking thing about Trump is his flagrant violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution in this targeting of the Syrian government.”

“Now, the US has been violating international law in terms of its drone assassination program and various bombing campaigns, like the one purporting to target ISIS in Syria.”

“Many of these activities are justified by attempts to invoke the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, passed after the 9/11 attacks. A decade and a half after those attacks, that rationale is international legal nonsense, but it exists.”

“(T)argeting of forces of or allied with the Syrian government has no justification whatsoever” – an impeachable offense.

In the post-Soviet Russia era alone, the Clintons, Bush/Cheney, Obama and now Trump are guilty of the highest of high crimes – yet remain unaccountable for what demands accountability.

US justification for downing a Syrian warplane in its own airspace, combating terrorism, is willfully and deceitfully false, deceitfully claiming “(w)e will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our partners if threatened” – when no threat exists.

Russian and Syrian aircraft operate legally in the country’s airspace. US-led (so-called) coalition warplanes DO NOT!

After four US-led attacks on Syrian and allied troops in recent weeks, CENTCOM claiming it has no desire to fire on these forces is a bald-faced lie. Facts on the ground speak for themselves.

US-led forces aim to control as much northern and southern Syrian territory as possible – their operations flagrantly illegal, wanting these areas separated from Damascus control.

Russian, Syrian and allied forces seek to protect the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Neither Washington or Moscow wants direct confrontation. Given escalated US aggression in Syria, anything is possible by accident or design.

Obama didn’t wage war on the country for regime change to quit. It’s now Trump’s war with the same objective.

The risk of possible US confrontation with Russia is too great to ignore.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Phony AUMF Justification for US Military Operations appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

War With Russia? The Russians Announce Any U.S. Warplanes Flying Over Syria Will Be Treated As ‘Targets’

War With Russia? The Russians Announce Any U.S. Warplanes Flying Over Syria Will Be Treated As ‘Targets’ | F-18-from-the-Dryden-Flight-Research-Center-Edwards-California-Public-Domain | Military Special Interests US News War Propaganda

Is the escalating conflict in Syria setting the stage for World War III with Russia? On Sunday, a U.S. Navy F-18 shot down a Syrian Army SU-22 near Raqqa. This represents a major escalation by U.S. forces, because this is the very first time that the U.S. military has shot down a Syrian warplane since the civil war began back in 2011. Needless to say, the Russians were not pleased by this at all. In fact, according to the Independent the Russians have just announced that all U.S. warplanes flying over Syria will now be treated as “targets” by the Russian military…

Russia has said it will treat US warplanes operating in parts of Syria where its air forces are also present as “targets” amid a diplomatic row caused by the downing of a Syrian jet.

The country’s defence ministry said it would track US-led coalition aircraft with missile systems and military aircraft, but stopped short of saying it would shoot them down.

A hotline set up between Russia and the US to prevent mid-air collisions will also be suspended.

The Russians have some of the very best anti-aircraft systems on the entire planet, and they would be more than capable of shooting down our jets.

So let us hope that the Russians don’t cross that line, because the anti-Russian hysteria in Washington would go to an entirely new level if footage of U.S. jets being blown out of the sky started running 24 hours a day on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.

But if U.S. forces keep striking the Syrian military, at some point the Russians are not going to hold back any longer. According to the Washington Post, Sunday’s incident was “the fourth time within a month that the U.S. military has attacked pro-Syrian government forces”…

The Pentagon said the downing of the aircraft came hours after Syrian loyalist forces attacked U.S.-backed fighters, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, in the village of Ja’Din, southwest of Raqqa. The rare attack was the first time a U.S. jet has shot down a manned hostile aircraft in more than a decade, and it signaled the United States’ sharply intensifying role in Syria’s war.

The incident is the fourth time within a month that the U.S. military has attacked pro-Syrian government forces.

Most Americans have absolutely no idea how close to war we are in Syria. One wrong move and we could easily find ourselves in another war in the Middle East which would be far more serious than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ever were.

That is because we probably wouldn’t just be fighting the Syrian government. We would also likely be fighting both Russia and Iran.

On Sunday, Iran escalated the conflict themselves by firing a number of missiles into eastern Syria

Iran’s military said Sunday that it has launched several missiles into eastern Syria, targeting Islamic State fighters in retaliation for the twin attacks that rocked Tehran on June 7.

The strikes are the first time Iran has fired missiles at another country in three decades and represent a major escalation of Iran’s role in the war in Syria.

For the United States, there is nothing to be gained by getting involved in the civil war in Syria. President Assad is definitely a bad guy, but so are the radical jihadist groups that are trying to overthrow him.

We say that we are conducting operations in Syria in order to fight ISIS, but ISIS forces in Syria are on their last legs at this point. If we allowed the Russians and the Iranians to focus on finishing off ISIS in Syria, that would free up U.S. resources to focus on ISIS strongholds in Iraq and elsewhere.

And once ISIS is completely vanquished, what will our policy in Syria be? Will we be dragged into a conflict that the Trump administration has always said that it wanted to avoid? The following comes from CNN

And yet now, as the Trump administration enters its sixth month, the US is being drawn into the very conflict its inaction had been intended to avoid. And as forces the US supports face danger from forces supporting the Syrian regime, the questions will get louder: What is US policy in Syria? And will the fight against ISIS lead the US into a war against Assad?

I will try to explain why things have gotten so complicated in the region.

In 2011, the “Arab Spring” was raging all over the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their Sunni allies in the region wanted to use that “opportunity” to overthrow President Assad in Syria, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her team decided that would be a wonderful idea. So massive protests against the Syrian government were organized, and money and arms were funneled to anti-Assad groups.

Pretty soon a horrible civil war broke out, and it has now raged on for six long years. The Syrian refugee crisis that we are dealing with today is the direct result of this civil war that Hillary Clinton had a hand in starting.

And everything was going according to plan at first. The radical jihadist groups that Saudi Arabia and Turkey were backing were winning, and it looked like Assad was going to lose.

But then Russia, Iran and Hezbollah intervened, and that totally turned the tide of the war.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their allies are still absolutely determined to find a way to win the war in Syria, and they see the U.S. as the key. They would love to get the U.S. into the war, but so far the U.S. has been hesitant to get fully involved in another quagmire in the Middle East.

But the Trump administration is unlikely to completely stop operations in Syria either, because Trump very much wants to have a positive relationship with the Saudis.

As ISIS continues to lose more territory, U.S. forces will increasingly find themselves operating in very close proximity to Syrian, Russian and Iranian forces.

We have already had four incidents of conflict between the two sides within the last month, and if we are not very careful we could end up in a major regional war in the Middle East.

So let us hope that cooler heads prevail, because we definitely don’t need another pointless war on our hands.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post War With Russia? The Russians Announce Any U.S. Warplanes Flying Over Syria Will Be Treated As ‘Targets’ appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Surprise, Goyim, Surprise: Analysts Now Expect American Soldiers To Spend Generations In Afghanistan

Surprise, Goyim, Surprise: Analysts Now Expect American Soldiers To Spend Generations In Afghanistan | AP-Photo-of-Afghan-Suicide-Bombing | Government Corruption Military Sleuth Journal Special Interests US News War Propaganda

[image: AP]

Didn’t Donald Trump promise us a total withdrawal of American military forces from foolish bases around the globe- or at least a large reduction in the number of soldiers wasting time and resources on a daily basis?

Like, I even recall him briefly mentioning a departure from South Korea, Japan, and the possibility of granting Germany back their sovereignty – he alluded to seventy years of occupation as being long enough.

As for Afghanistan, it should be plainly evident that the only contributions Americans have given the area involve horrid corruption within the puppet regimes, a massive increase in opium production (the Taliban actually stopped the drug trade on many levels), and easy tickets to the United States for hordes of barbarian Moslem “refugees.”

But perhaps if we fight for another thirty years or so, we’ll at last obtain victory – just keep hoping and keep dying, White Man.

From RT:

Americans may stay on Afghan soil for a “long-haul” mission that could evolve into several decades of “generational struggle,” General David Petraeus, ex-commander of US troops in Afghanistan, admitted.

The current war in Afghanistan is unlikely to end in the foreseeable future, David Petraeus, who led the US military campaign there back in the 2000s, told PBS News Hour. 

Though the retired General argued that “we went there for a reason and we stayed for a reason,” to defeat Al-Qaeda following the 9/11 attacks, he hinted that “a generational struggle” may unfold in the war-ravaged country.

“This is not something that is going to be won in a few years. We’re not going to take a hill, plant a flag, go home to a victory parade,” he said. “And we need to be there for the long haul, but in a way, that is, again, sustainable,” he added.

To back his remarkable statement, he cited other examples of US deployments in other parts of the world that have lasted decades.

“We have been in Korea for 65-plus years because there is an important national interest for that,” Petraeus said.

However, Petraeus “doesn’t think the US involvement will last that long” in Afghanistan.

The general argued “I think we should not approach this as a year-on-year mission,” noting that this kind of tentativeness gives Afghan leaders “the jitters.”

Embrace the feelings of primitive goat herders, Goyim.

Embrace their worries and their sorrows the come from the thought that White Americans will no longer stay in their country to have their legs blown off and their intestines strewn all over the ground.

The interview was released as media reports have emerged indicating that the Trump administration is preparing to deploy an additional 4,000 troops in Afghanistan to train the nation’s army and battle the resurging Taliban. The figure, though sizeable, nonetheless pales compared to the previous number of troops stationed in Afghanistan, which reached 100,000 at peak times.

Petraeus, who commanded the US troops and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from 2010 to 2011, insisted “it did actually turn back the Taliban.”

However, he then took a more measured tone, saying, “as I said, we are not going to permanently win this.”

Wait, what?

If there is no conceivable chance to win the war (and the Taliban is in fact stronger than ever before thanks to American involvement), why would a nation wish to keep troops fighting into the middle of the century?

One of the great unanswered questions of our time, that’s for sure.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Surprise, Goyim, Surprise: Analysts Now Expect American Soldiers To Spend Generations In Afghanistan appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS