One of the numerous reasons I refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections was her open and wanton desire to start World War III with Russia (on top of her general warmongering nature). Though I also did not vote for Donald Trump (for various reasons), I at least thought that he might be less willing to do so, particularly given his apparent noninterventionist stances on Syria in the past. But, it now appears those sentiments are exactly that – in the past – as America has conducted its first direct military airstrike on the Syrian government and military of this administration.
In an unsurprising – indeed, highly predictable – response, Russia unilaterally suspended a “key air agreement” mean to “minimize the risk of in-flight incidents between the US and Russian aircraft operating over Syria.” This response is so predictable, in fact, that it seems to me to be the desired outcome. It is now just a matter of time before an in-air incident occurs (or is alleged to have occurred), which in turn will undoubtedly lead to escalation of conflict between the two nations in the region and elsewhere (the Baltics should be especially nervous about these pretenses).
The strike reportedly comes as a retaliatory response to estranged Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons against a portion of the Syrian civilian populace. Like Ron Paul, however, I am quite dubious of the veracity of these claims and am highly suspicious that they are a product of false flag (or other such deceptive) operations specifically mean to keep us embroiled in the Middle East in perpetuum. Assad’s use of such weapons against reportedly unarmed civilians, especially at this time, just does not make any sense. If the stories are true, it is not as though ~100 unarmed civilians presents any sort of realistic threat to his regime, relative to the fully armed and motivated Islamists who are reportedly directly engaged in civil war with his government. Why would he not gas them instead? Also, ISIS – you know, America’s “allies” in the conflict against Assad – have been the ones repeatedly using chemical weapons in the conflict, according to independent watch groups. But I digress…
We know the State’s power directly feeds off of “threats” – real or imaginary – and the combined threat of terrorism and Russia makes for a power monger’s embarrassment of riches. When you consider the USS Maine, Operation Northwoods, Operation Ajax, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and the intelligence reports leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (just to name a few), there is ample historical precedence to support the default conclusion that the State is more than willing to be all sorts of disingenuous to get what it ultimately wants, particularly where war is concerned.
In fact, at least according to one early source that has subsequently gone almost entirely ignored, the United States reportedly blessed just such a false flag operation in Syria during the Obama years, meant to justify increased military action of the ilk we are currently witnessing.
Whether one is inherently distrustful of the State’s international mischief or not, one thing should be readily apparent to everyone in such circumstances. Conservatives and liberals should unite in the obvious observation that mistakes (at the very least) do happen, especially in large, groupthink-driven bureaucracies, and that war with Russia, via Syria as a proxy, is such a significantly consequential proposition that we might benefit from “pumping the breaks” a bit to thoroughly investigate and analyze the situation to properly determine what the truth of the matter really is. It is not like Russia is going anywhere soon, so if war with that state is the ultimate goal we have time to properly determine the righteousness of it.
Perhaps the worst part of this (aside from the imminent, unnecessary death and destruction) is that Republicans who were so publicly and privately opposed to Clinton’s bloodthirsty, global interventionist designs will now publicly and privately devise every excuse possible to rationalize this form of globalist intervention, now that it is safely tucked under a Republican administration (just as they are so eager to embrace Trumpcare after spending years demanding a full repeal of Obamacare).
But in any event, war now seems inevitable. I guess Democrats will finally be stripped of their “Trump is a Russian agent/mole/lackey” narrative now. I hope it was worth having an anti-Russia warmonger in the White House, as they so desired when they electorally pined for Hillary Clinton, when their children and grandchildren are the ones conscripted to fight and die against them.