Courtesy Photo
Presidential nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
An Iraqi man said he preferred Trump over Hillary. My first reaction was laughter, but later I wondered why?
After considering Clinton’s support for illegal regime change wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria, and the endless War on Terror (WOT), it became understandable. These policies have destabilized the Middle East, creating civil wars, millions of refugees, and breeding grounds for terrorism.
Research of State Department statistics published by Reader Supported News found: “Terror attacks have jumped by a stunning 6,500 percent since 2002 (and) the War on Terror may have killed between 1.3 and 2 million people… ” The first reasonable conclusion is the WOT is an abject failure, however; some sources indicate destabilization is intentional.
An article from The Guardian states, “For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan.” The “benefit” of instability would be to gain greater control of resources by undermining any government that may provide organized resistance.
Neoconservative hawks desired Iraq war far before 9-11 and chose to invade the day after, regardless of nonexistent evidence. According to retired General Wesley Clark, shortly after 9-11, they planned to rapidly take out seven countries, “Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finishing off, Iran.”
Certainly, Hillary is a hawk supportive of coups, invasions, and the 700-1,000 foreign military bases for imperial hegemony. Similarly, Obama supports all that, plus a $1 trillion nuclear arsenal upgrade and drone assassinations in several countries, yet Hillary is even more ravenous. She not only pushed Obama for the disastrous Libyan war, but saber rattles for Iran war, even threatening “obliteration.”
Spending over $6 trillion for endless Middle East wars and increasing terrorism may be acceptable to some, but escalation toward nuclear war with Russia and China cannot be. America never stopped threatening Russia with NATO nukes near their borders, and Obama and Clinton have increased threats.
Award-winning journalist John Pilger writes, “(After the Obama Administration) masterminded the coup (against) the democratically elected government in (Ukraine, and attempted to seize) Russia’s historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea…a second cold war is under way (with) the greatest military build-up on the borders of Russia since (WWII, and) Romania went “live” with a NATO “missile defence” base that aims its first-strike American missiles at the heart of Russia…”
Pilger continues, “(T)he Pentagon is sending ships, planes and special forces to the Philippines to threaten China. The U.S. already encircles China with hundreds of military bases (and as) a direct consequence, China reportedly has changed its nuclear weapons policy (to high alert). It was (Clinton who) elevated the competing territorial claims…in the South China Sea to an international issue (and in) a mammoth war game in 2015, Operation Talisman Sabre, the U.S. and Australia practiced “choking” the Straits of Malacca through which pass most of China’s oil and trade.”
Lastly, Pilger writes, “Trump is a far right-wing domestic populist; yet the danger of Clinton may be more lethal for the world (since she) leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya and Ukraine (and) Clinton’s presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world’s ten biggest arms companies.” It is unsurprising war profiteers would support her considering she sold $165 billion in arms to various nations including brutal dictators that donated large sums to The Clinton Foundation.
Courtesy Photo
As Stephen Cohen, Professor of Russian History at Princeton, pointed out, “Only Donald Trump has said anything meaningful and critical of U.S. foreign policy.” Indeed, Trump said of the Iraq War: “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none (and) hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces.”
Additionally, Trump indicates decreased hostility toward Russia and said, “NATO is obsolete (and) not meant for terrorism.” Russia has not offensively threatened the U.S. since the end of the Cold War, so why does U.S.-NATO maintain numerous provocative nuclear bombs near Russia? Combine that with the Ukrainian coup and U.S. troops conducting military maneuvers near the Russian border, and think how Russians feel? Answer: how Americans felt during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Trump and Clinton are among the most distrusted candidates in American history, and nobody truly knows their destructive capacities. Trump would likely be worse domestically and Clinton would likely be worse internationally. Both would likely continue many current disasters and create new ones.
Like other WOT presidents, Hillary and Trump have demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and open government. Important provisions have been chipped away, and both could inflict further damage.
Thankfully, one scandal-free, trustworthy candidate supports none of the above diseases. Dr. Jill Stein offers intelligence, wisdom and courage to overcome this “lesser evil” illness and confront the soulless empire.
The key issues for human survival are nuclear war and climate, and Stein offers the only sensible vision to solve these issues. Her prescription will be detailed in the final appointment.
Abel Tomlinson is a guest columnist from Fayetteville, Ark. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of The Free Weekly.
