I wish foreign policy had been why Obama beat Hillary, and Hillary’s Iraq vote did play a small role, but the main reason was the mainstream media’s overwhelming love for Obama and hatred for Clinton. Why did that occur?
Racial guilt, Obama’s appealing (to sociopaths) cold ‘Wall Street style’, and misogyny. Our mainstream taste makers don’t dwell on hard-thinking, ‘boring’ stuff like foreign policy, though they are happy clapping seals for U.S. warmongering.

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 20 2015 10:16 utc | 3

From the link “Anybody who rides around on a horse without their shirt, I can handle that guy,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Yes we know all about that Lindsey.

Posted by: harry law | Oct 20 2015 10:24 utc | 5

Its just a PR, to look “tough” and to get funding, nothing more, nothing less.
The worst US and co could do they are already doing – supplying TOWs (massively) and MANPADs (limited) to their bellowed terrorists.
US could inflict even more harm if they’d give out latest Stinger’s like candies, but this would backfire real fast and thick. Soon after US and alies planes and choppers would be falling down from the skies all over the region, and Putin would just shrug: “dont look at me, its YOUR Stingers”.

Posted by: Harry | Oct 20 2015 11:15 utc | 7

as a symbolic sampling of US electoral politics i voted for Cynthia McKinney in 2008. i thought it was really quite astounding to see such intelligence and genuine compassion in a vying candidate, but, alas…
observing the lion’s share of others (from a safe distance) is really sobering. when they gather for a ‘debate’ i like to play ‘witness lineup’ to detect who is the most cognitively, empathetically, dysfunctional, or, in pukka, psychopathic.
Hillary wins hands down every time.

Posted by: john | Oct 20 2015 11:24 utc | 9

@fairleft #3:
and misogyny.
Oh come now, let us not import US identity-based politics into MoA. Just because the way in which I hate Clinton – I see her as a psychopath of the Lady Macbeth type, which only a woman can be – does not mean that I hate her for misogynistic reasons.
Also, given how rigged the US national political system is, I don’t think we should see a member of any “non-privileged” group – a woman, a black, a Latino, a gay man or a Lesbian – attaining high office as a victory for progress. All that would mean is that for one more election cycle, the system gave progressive-leaning people a new excuse to vote for a Democrat.
Although having written that, I think a Lesibian becoming president really would throw a spammer into the works (but not a gay male).

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20 2015 12:18 utc | 11

The reaction to the Ghadafi murder based on the classic latin phrase is, in pukka, Hillary’s Willie Horton. Here is that moment, along with a few other beauts (Hell, this amateur bit is a tv commercial in the can – ready for broadcast):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

Posted by: fast freddy | Oct 20 2015 12:20 utc | 13

The wind blows, the rain falls, the sun shines, the Hillarious calls for war… What’s the news?

Posted by: zz | Oct 20 2015 13:12 utc | 15

She said it in the debate.
As soon as Obie put her in the State Dept she was in charge of foreign policies.
Libya and Syria: Hillary’s Wars. IMO.
Huge disappointments,Obama’s giving Wall Street a pass, and giving free reins to Hillary. She just wants to finish what she started. She wants to be compared to Margaret. She wants her legacy.

Posted by: shadyl | Oct 20 2015 13:52 utc | 17

Apologies is this post appears twice, my browser is acting up. Keeps telling me my ‘session has expired’ when I hit ‘Post’.
@18
If you were a woman, short sighted, and had low standards in men, I’d ask you to marry me. You’ve hit the nails on the head with that post.
@10
They’re *all* republicrats 😉 It’s gives the voters the illusion of choice…
@11
I couldn’t agree more. “Misogyny” is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Usually, after the scoundrel has exhausted attempts to find refuge in “racism”, “homophobia”, or “haters”. I wish the Frankfurt School had never started us down this dark road to P.C. identity politics where people are labelled as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ according to some arbitary division, rather than their character, beliefs, or actions. Identity Politics is intellectually lazy, emotionally infantile, and too often a manifestation of self-interested bigotry.
BTW, Hillary is a lesbian. She’s had many long-term girlfriends. She married Bill for political convenience. (Why would a lesbian president be any more spanner-throwy than anyone else?)
@16
I wish the Donald Cook story was true, but it has the ring of propaganda. Russia’s electronic warefare capabilities are awesome, and a Russian electronic warefare pod might spoof or fry the radar of a radar-guided missile (missiles are small) but it can’t spoof or fry the SPY radar, but a Su-24 doesn’t have the electrical power available to output a signal strong enough to fry the radars and other systems of an Aegis warship like the Donald Cook, typical output for the Aegis’ system’s SPY-1 radar (for example) being 6MW. The Su-24’s ‘Geran’ EW pod can jam radars up to 100 KW, which gives a good idea of the inherent power limitations that the Su-24 imposes on any jamming pod (small plane, small engines, small power bus). Even with agile digital jamming, a Su-24 can’t fry the Aegis system, which is at least fifty times more powerful (big ship, big engines, big power bus, big radar). When you hear about Russian systems being able to jam GPS for example, that’s because the GPS signal is very weak (measured in watts) while the jamming complex (e.g., Richag-AV) outputs thousands of times that power withour breaking a sweat.
Also, the Theodore Roosevelt is at the end of an 8-month deployment, 8 months being the standard deployment length for USN vessels as of 2014. It’s normal for it to rotate back to home (Norfolk, Virginia) port at this point. The USN is increasingly strapped for money, and it can’t operate its carriers 24/7. Most of the CVNs are in their home ports right now.

Posted by: BiffaBacon | Oct 20 2015 14:27 utc | 19

@7, Harry,
“Its just a PR, to look “tough” and to get funding, nothing more, nothing less.”
If so, it’s a very sad state of affairs when politicians think that courting nuclear war is a vote getter.

Posted by: Lysander | Oct 20 2015 14:48 utc | 21

Good articles today. Some days I think I am mad, or is it the world that is mad?
Lately I have had to come to MOA, or Zerohedge, or Asia Times for some Bhadrakumar or Pepe articles to realize I am not alone. So glad this blog is still up and running. DailyKos has become a joke. Sad.
Even Paul Craig Roberts gets it. Russia and China have finally said NO to the Neo-cons.

What the neocons have done is to throw away every treaty and violate every agreement that had the world on the path to nuclear disarmament. These evil persons have caused massive moderization of Soviet and Chinese nuclear forces. There is no prospect whatsoever of American hegemony over the world. Yet, the insane neoconservatives continue to speak as if the world is subordinate to them, a collection of arrogant two-bit punks who could not subdue a few thousand lightly armed Taliban after 14 years of effort and American sacrifice and whose disastrous policies have made, until Vladimir Putin’s intervention, the Islamic State the most potent military force in the Middle East.
snip
The neoconservatives should be quickly rounded up, arrested, tried, convicted, and executed for their massive crimes before they destroy the world. snip
The damned neoconservatives have destroyed seven countries, and the bastards and bitches walk around free!

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/20/will-the-crazed-neocons-bring-us-nuclear-winter-paul-craig-roberts/

Posted by: shadyl | Oct 20 2015 14:55 utc | 23

@11
Doh! I forgot to say, seeing as we’re in full ‘People Magazine’/’National Enquirer’ mode and talking about sexuality: Obama is gay. I’m not trolling or being sarcastic, I’m serious. It’s one of those things I lazily assume everyone knows by now, but mainstream news media ignores it the same way they ignored Roosevelt being in a wheelchair, or Tony Blair being bisexual.
Obama’s boyfriend of many years allegedly is/was = Reggie Love. Obama’s schoolfriends have reported in the news media that he was gay from his teens, and that he dated a lot of older men while in Hawaiai. Michelle Obama was allegedly born ‘Michael’ and is a male-to-female transexual. (His/her school records and photos leaked to the alt media, I’ve seen pitures of Michael as a highschool athlete. He was quite a promising football player, by all accounts.) Allegedly, Sasha and Malia are adopted; they’re from North Africa AFAIK – explaining why Michelle was never seen pregnant in public, and why the kids look nothing like either of the Obamas. (They look Berber or Touareg for heavens sake, nothing like either Barak or Michelle.)
When that sourpuss Joan Rivers replied to a TV news reporter who had asked her if America would ever have a gay president, she said “We already have it with Obama… You know Michelle is a tranny… A transgender. We all know…”. She wasn’t joking, she was telling the truth in her usual abrasive manner. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/joan-rivers-calls-president-obama-716738, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4z2JZSLFI4). It’s not just Joan Rivers who thinks that. (Or I wouldn’t mention it, I dislike her enormously.) Pretty much the entire Beltway knows. I’m always astonished that more people outside Washington don’t know.

Posted by: BiffaBacon | Oct 20 2015 14:56 utc | 25

Demian @11 and BiffaBacon @19: I was talking about the likely reasons the mainstream punditocracy lividly hated Hillary and passionately embraced Obama. Not about me, you, or you. I don’t think misogyny is all that common among mature adults, but the mainstream elite media is a strange place where immature brats with bizarre motivations sometimes rule, as long as their _political_ leanings are pure conformist neoliberal/neoconservative. Looking into that clubby, suffocating world you rarely see actual policy differences, since the punditocracy knows that what really matters is guaranteed: all the Republicrat candidates will take care of them and ‘their people’, the rich and the upper-upper-middle class.
The best chronicler of the 2008 campaign is the Daily Howler. Here are three examples (if you can handle reading about people like Tim Russert, Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olberman) of what was actually going on in the mainstream media from back in 2008:
Feb. 13, 2008: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021308.shtml
May 21, 2008: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052108.html
May 29, 2008: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052908.shtml

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 20 2015 14:58 utc | 27

Hillary talking tough to the US electorate is nothing compared to Putin talking tough to these billionaire factory owners.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XfbWnDXCx8

Posted by: harry law | Oct 20 2015 15:19 utc | 29

@26
“Who said / wrote that it was the Su-24 that caused the rumoured black out of the Aegis screens?”
The website that broke the story, Voltairenet, said it was the Su-24 that caused the rumoured black out of the Aegis screens. The Su-24 is the RuAF’s dedicated Electronic Attack airframe, and was the USSR’s long before that; so this detail adds an air of plausibility unless the reader is familiar with Russian EW systems.
The original story clearly stated: “The State Department acknowledged that the crew of the destroyer USS Donald Cook has been gravely demoralized ever since their vessel was flown over in the Black Sea by a Russian Sukhoi-24 (Su-24) fighter jet which carried neither bombs nor missiles but only an electronic warfare device.”
http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html
The story per se, and the above paragraph, both seem to have originated in Voltairnet, on November 8, 2014. This exact paragraph was then repeated in many other websites, verbatim, after Voltairenet published it. Other websites then picked up the Voltairenet story.
FYI, electronic warface attack works best line-of-sight; in fact most forms don’t work at all unless you have a direct line-of-sight to the target. The radar horizon for the average Russian ship in the Black Sea to an Arleigh Burke Aegis vessel like the Donald Cook is maybe 30km (tops), so the assumption that a Russian ship attacked the Donald Cook is unrealistic. (That, and the fact Russia’s surface vessels don’t have the electrical power or the EW complexes to shut down/fry an SPY-I or an Aegis combat system per se. It’s in the realm of science fiction at this moment in time.)
Same goes for Russia’s land-based EW vehicles. They don’t have the electrical power to shut down the Aegis system like the article claimed. They can do impressive things vis-a-vis the Aegis radar (like concealing movement and activity in the jammer’s vicinity, creating a localised ‘blind spot’ around the jammer) but they cannot offensively attack/fry the Aegis system.
Also, the ‘optimistic’ line-of-sight radar horizon from Crimean coastal regions (or Novorossiyisk) is 70km tops, assuming a ‘best-case’ height of 300m for a Russian jamming complex. (Average elevation in Crimea / Novorossiyisk is far, far lower than this, so likely range would be maybe 50km or less.) That’s too short-ranged to be a viable weapons system against a surface vessel. It makes 90% of the Black Sea a ‘safe zone’ for a foreign Surface vessel. Which is why the Russians rely on the Su-24 for electronic attack in the first place (as opposed to electronic defense).

Posted by: BiffaBacon | Oct 20 2015 15:41 utc | 31

Eat this, Hillary:
Thierry Meyssan
The Russian army asserts its superiority in conventional warfare
@dahoit #32:
remember that lesbians hate men
Let’s take that proposition seriously for a moment. Can anyone think of any examples of a Lesbian achieving a notable position in politics anywhere? I can’t.
The only thing that comes to mind is Andrea Dworkin working on some local legislation against pornography. Dworkin is of course famous for her doctrine that in a patriarchal society such as ours, all sex is rape, but I don’t think one can say she hated men, since she was in a non-physical relationship with a man. But Dworkin didn’t even claim to be a Lesbian, as far as I know, so I really can’t come up with anybody. You would think there would be a Lesbian or two at least in western European parliaments, but I don’t think I’ve heard of any. Have there even been any women who have admitted to being “bisexual”?
As for gay men, there is the infamous case of Roy Cohn, who was Joseph McCarthy’s right hand man. Then there is that Dutch politician who got assassinated for being against immigration by Muslims, who was gay if I remember correctly. I can’t think of anyone other than that, other than right-wing politicians whose careers end when they get outed for being gay.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20 2015 16:09 utc | 33

Hm, BiffaBacon, is clearly running a purposeful, structured, dis/misinformation campaign … to mislead the unaware …
Peace, Salaam, Shalom

Posted by: Outraged | Oct 20 2015 16:18 utc | 35

Biffa is actually saying many technically correct things, but with false focus. It’s all about stealth and blind spots. You can only “fry” stuff very selectively, with lots of power and only if it offers a resonant entry path.

Posted by: ttt | Oct 20 2015 16:30 utc | 37

The best thing Americans can do for their country in order to stop the fascist psychopaths in Washington is to stay home on November 8, 2016. Don’t vote because voting is exactly what these monsters want the people to do. Voting is a stamp of approval, the mark of credibility and legitimacy they need to continue the reign of terror around the world. Let the federal government collapse into the heap of corruption it has become over the decades. The people have more control over their State governments than the cesspool of evil that surrounds the Potomac River.
Dissolve it, start over!

Posted by: PokeTheTruth | Oct 20 2015 16:42 utc | 39

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, a lesbian, was Prime Minister of Iceland from 2009 to 2013. Elio di Rupo, a gay man, was Prime Minister of Belgium from 2011 to 2014. Xavier Bettel, a gay man, has been Prime Minister of Luxembourg since 2013. Gay and lesbian holders of lower offices are listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_first_LGBT_holders_of_political_offices

Posted by: lysias | Oct 20 2015 16:47 utc | 41

@Secret Agent@6
This tells us everything we need to know about Hillary. She is reckless.
La Clinton political stands are not personal, she represents a sector of the US establishment that sees war as the perpetuation of politics by any means. Social/political perceptions of her gender as weak(er), requires her grandstand positions to be more macho than a brute Mexican drug cartel head-honcho. It is all a sound-bite for domestic consumption. La Clinton is not so stupid to believe a no-fly zone is even a point of debate this late into the game.
What called my attention from the quote b provided, is her blatant cynicism and utter hypocrisy.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has split with President Obama,

Fine, she’s in campaign, can’t be tied to a guy perceived as “weak” and “clueless.”

advocating a no-fly zone in an attempt to stop the bloodshed,

Here is where you start needing a sickness bag, both because La Clinton’s cynical pedestal, and the New Joke Times publication of her statement without an iota of questioning, given the new context Russians have de facto established in Syria.

reduce the flow of refugees

Does anyone here believe La Clinton cares about the millions of refugees assailing Fortress Europe? All she cares about, is exploiting them for her nefarious political schemes. She is nauseatingly wicked.

and give the United States leverage against Russia.

Ah, she, or the New Joke Times, were saving the real reason for last. For the practical implementation of the no-fly zone she’s advocating, she can pick up the phone and call the Pentagon. I am sure Ash Carter will read her the lay of the land back in Syria, let her know the meaning of S-300/S-400, explain to her they are bigger than Bill’s dick, and can deal with more planes at the same time than Bill did with women during his entire career.
La Clinton: a snake in the grass waiting to bite. More.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Oct 20 2015 16:53 utc | 43

For those who are not trolls on this site, a very clear interview w Putin: http://thesaker.is/exclusive-vladimir-putin-interview-to-vladimir-solovyov-eng-subs/
He speaks very straightforwardly ab the Russian military capabilities (it seems only logical that they’ve taken a long time to design, develop, test, build, test again, train, and finally use) and the purpose of actions in Syria.

Posted by: GoraDiva | Oct 20 2015 17:02 utc | 45

Iran’s Deputy Chief of Staff: ISIL Created to Maintain Israel’s Security
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940724000711
Hey b, I saw you on Information Clearing House!

Posted by: BiffaBacon | Oct 20 2015 17:32 utc | 47

Here is an interesting question that I haven’t seen anyone ask: why is Russia going to succeed in Syria, whereas – in its incarnation as the Soviet Union – it failed in Afghanistan? I thought of this question when I ran across the following observation by Andrew Bacevich:

The shooting would stop, Bush vowed, only when countries like Afghanistan had ceased to harbor anti-American terrorists and countries like Iraq had ceased to encourage them. Achieving this goal meant that the inhabitants of those countries would have to change. Afghans and Iraqis, followed in due course by Syrians, Libyans, Iranians, and sundry others would embrace democracy, respect human rights, and abide by the rule of law, or else.

Now, like the USSR in Afghanistan, the US is failing in those countries. What makes the outcome for the US the same as it was for the USSR, but the outcome for Russia different?
The answer is obvious. Both the USSR and the US tried/try to impose an alien ideology and social system on societies rather different than their own. Russia, having learned from its mistakes, no longer does that. Its foreign policy is now guided by Burke’s insight that in order to flourish, a society must be allowed to grow organically within the space created by its own particular culture.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20 2015 18:14 utc | 49

Don’t think a person’s sexuality is relevant. jmo
I do find it interesting that Obama has undercut Hillary’s no fly zone stance by negotiating directly with Russia, so there are adults left in the room.
A little pull back by our military might be in order. We have now left numerous countries in chaos with our nation building, maimed and killed 100s of thousands and wasted the money needed right here to repair our failing infrastructure, and I think anyone with half a brain is connecting the dotes. Love the internet.

Posted by: Shadyl | Oct 20 2015 18:31 utc | 51

Hitlery, is simply projecting who she really is – A warmongering psychopath. And being a woman, she has to up her bloodlust credentials compaired to men, because that is politically crucial in the United States of Atrocities.
You can take it either way, she really is like that, or because a woman, she has to talk like a Rethuglican.

Posted by: tom | Oct 20 2015 18:39 utc | 53

@ Demian #49, thanks for the link to the Bacevich article. I knew I’d seen ‘When They Stand Up, We Stand Down’ before — it’s just a remake of that 60’s classic titled ‘Vietnamization’, this time rated PG instead of R.

Posted by: BobS | Oct 20 2015 18:54 utc | 55

Hillary Clinton wants to stop the bloodshed? Yeah, from her polling numbers, they’re positively hemorrhaging. Human blood? From the “we came we saw he died” cackling hag when asked about Gaddafi? Yeah right. No doubt she’d be absolutely GIDDY to see Assad sodomized to death by a sharp object, and could care less about millions of brown people maimed, killed, displaced or otherwise ruined if it achieves her and her master’s geopolitical goals.

Posted by: Colinjames | Oct 20 2015 19:22 utc | 57

Jeb! (sic) will sashay onto the scene as the (false) “moderate” cool-headed, even-tempered murderer.
The MSM will tee it up for him. He’ll do Hillary like Ronald Reagan mopped the floor with Walter Mondale, “There you go again……”

Posted by: fast freddy | Oct 20 2015 19:50 utc | 59

Laguerre @ 1, Saker says that Russia hasn’t enough aircraft in position to enforce a no-fly.
Thierry Meyssan says the US coalition is “deaf & blind” including satellite images for 300 km around Latakia due to Russian jamming technology. The airbase at Incirlik is w/in the 300 km. I note that this did not prevent the bombing of two power plants at Aleppo nor the dropping of armaments in two locations.
Contrary to earlier reporting General Breedlove’s comments 9/28 regarding the possibility that Russia MIGHT construct an A2AD bubble in Syria does NOT mention any Russian jamming technology, or any then-existing A2AD bubble. http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/russians-in-syria-building-a2ad-bubble-over-region-breedlove/

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2015 20:23 utc | 61

re 60

Laguerre @ 1, Saker says that Russia hasn’t enough aircraft in position to enforce a no-fly.

Of course. Russia has not imposed itself a no-fly zone. The question is that if the US tries to impose such, whether it will be respected. My view is half and half. If the US went so far, which I don’t think they will, Russia might try to respect it, in order to avoid war. But I don’t think they will succeed in avoiding no-fly territory, so war.
The idea of a US no-fly zone is dead, unless they want war with Russia.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 20 2015 21:27 utc | 63

@ Demian at 49:
The situation for Russia in Syria is different from what it was for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan over the 1980s. In July 1979, the US government decided to give the USSR its own Vietnam in Afghanistan by funnelling arms, money and fighters to warlords in Afghanistan. At the time, the country was ruled by a Marxist-oriented government. Once the warlords got their weapons and fighters, they began causing trouble and Kabul called on Moscow for assistance. The Soviets responded by sending in tanks but once their involvement was set, the US continued funnelling arms and men to the warlords to exhaust the Soviet war effort.
The Russians these days are sensitive to what was done to the USSR in Afghanistan. They are keen to avoid that scenario which is why their involvement in Syria is limited to airstrikes on specific targets identified by the Syrians. There have probably been reforms in the Russian military as well after its poor performance in Chechnya during the 1990s (when Boris Yeltsin was President).
Also in the 1980s the Soviet economy was failing due to its own internal failures and contradictions. These days the Russian economy is in a much stronger position as evidenced by the limited effects of EU and other Western sanctions against it (and which incidentally have hit sanctioning EU economies much harder).
Everything the US did to the Soviets in the 1980s to weaken them, it is trying to do again against Russia. There is something though that the US has overlooked – the Russians have learned their lessons. The question now is, has the US learned lessons from that past history? It seems that everything the US is applying to screw Russia now is rebounding back onto it. The US is now much weaker economically than it was in the 1980s, having squandered so much of its wealth and reputation, and impoverished so many of its people and industries, since 1991.

Posted by: Jen | Oct 20 2015 21:39 utc | 65

BiffaBacon @ 19,
I just got thru checking General Breedlove’s comments about the A2AD bubbles created by Russia from Kaliningrad and from Crimea: He does not mention anything electronic. Ditto on 9/28 when he thought the Russians MIGHT be going to construct an A2AD over Syria. The Donald Cook story originated w Gordon Duff, a famous disinfo artist; it has been repeated everywhere, but I can find no reliable confirmation. Incidentally, I think the SU-24 was not supposed to be using its own power to jam, but was supposed to be carrying the secret jamming weapon, in the unlikely event that it exists.
Regarding the withdrawal of the Roosevelt, you are again correct. I have several times posted links showing announcements in June & July that the US would have a 2-month carrier gap in the Fall in the Gulf. It was further announced that the gap would end when the replacement carrier arrived in December. Further, the imminent departure of the Roosevelt was announced the day BEFORE the Caspian missile strikes.
The Saker also included this nonsense in his analysis. I imm’y posted the correction, but the moderator killed it. I’ve noticed just lately that there is a new, censoring moderator there. Pity.
Thanks for good sense, BiffaBacon.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2015 21:51 utc | 67

Turkey thinks about military action against Syrian Kurds, or maybe just changing nationalist party votes to AKP votes: http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/07/08/419371/Turkey-NSA-Syria-Erdogan-Davutoglu The Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily also reported last Sunday that the Turkish military had called on all troop commanders stationed along its border with Syria to be present at a meeting aimed at discussing a possible intervention in the crisis-hit country. Erdogan has accused Syrian Kurds of trying to establish a state in Syria’s north, saying Ankara will leave no stone unturned to prevent such an establishment near its borders.
I wonder if Turkey cd be the one bombing Syrian electricity plants– to give US plausible denialibility.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2015 21:55 utc | 69

The strongest argument for why the “rebels” are not “moderate” is never made:
Those who fight against govt forces fight for the victory of those who will subject the entire Syrian people to the same murderous treatment already committed against a part. ISIS has massacred many for their religion; it has kidnapped women and children & sold them into slavery; committed forced “marriages”; made soldiers of children; forced men to serve in their army; stolen the possessions of the people; and starved them into subjugation.
Are those who fight for the entire population to be treated this way moderates? More like traitors.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2015 21:59 utc | 71

@64 Jen
These are very good points. The international situation is completely different now. US’ “allies” are all financially insolvent, demographically hopeless, and militarily overstretched – a deadly combination. China and Iran opposed Russia in Afghanistan. Not so today. China was an economic non-factor back then. Today it’s the world’s biggest economy and the gap with the US is growing every year.
“There have probably been reforms in the Russian military as well after its poor performance in Chechnya during the 1990s (when Boris Yeltsin was President).”
“Reforms” is an understatement. Russians got rid of the old military and built themselves a brand new one. There is no resemblance between 1990s and 2015. Even a jingoistic “Foxtrot Alpha” writes that Pentagon doubts it can win a conventional war against Russia. Which, adjusted for typical American optimism, means that there is no chance for any such victory.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pentagon-unsure-if-it-could-beat-russia-in-a-convention-1724226952

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 20 2015 22:16 utc | 73

The U.S. collaborated with Stalin’s Communist, godless USSR during WWII. Why can’t it collaborate with Putin’s non-Communist, Christian Russia?

Posted by: lysias | Oct 20 2015 22:42 utc | 75

“we” can’t collaborate with the Russians because the polls are still inconclusive because most Americans don’t actually care — meaning that they are wide-open to being whipped into a frenzy of loathing (or not) by Fox News … everyone loves the idea of “no fly zones” … one imagines bucolic meadows where the sheep peacefully graze, butterflies and bees audibly buzzing … most big city folks would love to live in a no-fly zone, a no-police helicopter zone, a no ambulance or other siren zone…. like sanctions (which sound rather sacramental, perhaps dispensed by cardinals in red frocks and caps) … it sounds like some sort of grown-up “time out”

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Oct 20 2015 22:53 utc | 77

Last week, I had to interview refugees who had managed to get through, and register in France, and wished to pursue University studies. All were energetic young men. The truth came out from the guy I was seated next to in the flight to Istanbul. He was a Kurd from NW Syria, just established in Germany, who was going back for his family in Istanbul. It’s like that – the guys go first, then they round up the family.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 20 2015 23:06 utc | 79

Why wasting time with that witch? She is burnt to the bones with Benghazi and her email circus. She has almost zero chances to become the next president especially if Biden becomes a candidate.

Posted by: Virgile | Oct 20 2015 23:12 utc | 81

@Penelope | | 67
Completely agree, but neo-cons are the mouth pieces appearing on my TV everyday. The hidden hands hide behind their walled estates.

Posted by: shadyl | Oct 20 2015 23:24 utc | 83

@81 Screw America
Why corner a dangerous animal, when you can simply sit down, pour yourself a glass of wine, smoke a cigar, and by the time you are finished, the beast will be dead anyway…

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 20 2015 23:27 utc | 85

@62 laguerre.. thanks for all your posts.. i suspect the usa does want war with russia and it is only a matter of time and they are going to get it.. sorry, but i am cynical and i can’t see this unfolding differently from how i how just stated it.. if the usa/nato was interested in getting along, they wouldn’t have pushed for what has happened in the ukraine either.. i go back to what @6 secret agent said :Russia has chosen its battlefield. NATO wanted it to be in Northern Europe where they are strongest but Putin didn’t take the bait. NATO has no advantage in the ME because they are not wanted there. Russia expects a conflict with NATO and I expect they are willing to go all in. Apparently they have an advantage in sophisticated weapons which will only last a few years. Russia has chosen the time and place. No sane general would be lured into a fight.”
hard for me to see it different from this..

Posted by: james | Oct 21 2015 0:26 utc | 87

@86 james
This makes absolutely no sense. To start, NATO has no meaningful strength in Northern Europe. Germany keeps mothballing its armed forces. Poland is no match for Russia. USA is pivoting to the Pacific and away from Europe. Baltics are a rounding error. UK military gets smaller and more pathetic every year, yet Britain still runs 6 percent budget deficit (which ensures that the downsizing will continue).
Russia would be able to confront this gang “any time, any place”.
But even if we assume that NATO is spoiling for a fight with Moscow…so they would logically want to invade…but then Russians send their planes to Syria, and NATO says “Oh, well, now we can’t even start a war”??? LOL. How ridiculous is this?

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 21 2015 1:00 utc | 89

Outraged @ 35: “Hm, BiffaBacon, is clearly running a purposeful, structured, dis/misinformation campaign … to mislead the unaware …
Good call, Absolutely. Just enough relevant info to misdirect, meanwhile, interjecting irrelevant gossip. The trolls are getting more sophisticated.
harry law @ 29: Thanks for the Putin video. I, for one, hope it’s not just PR.

Posted by: ben | Oct 21 2015 1:28 utc | 91

@ 66
Yes, certainly the imminent departure of the T. Roosevelt was announced BEFORE the Kalibr launches but AFTER the rapid build up of Russian aircraft in Syria through Iranian airspace had taken the Pentagon and Langley by surprise.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Oct 21 2015 2:00 utc | 93

@90, 92
Reuters reports these Russians were volunteers, not Russian military:

Rami Abdulrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which monitors the conflict, told Reuters that his sources in the area had confirmed the deaths of Russians, but did not have a figure. He said he believed they were not regular Russian forces but volunteers.
(but then this)
The Kremlin has said there are no Russian troops in combat roles in Syria, though it has said there are trainers and advisers working alongside the Syrian military and also forces guarding Russia’s bases in western Syria.
The Kremlin has said it is not undertaking any steps to recruit and deploy volunteer fighters.

A bit unclear.

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 21 2015 2:43 utc | 95

Regarding Syria.
I would like to see Russia (Putin) bring Assad and the Syrian Kurds together, perhaps with the Iraqi Gov. and the Iraqi Kurds. Have a “grand bargain” sort of situation.
Maybe some of this has already been worked out behind closed doors. Ie. We will work with you (Syrian Kurds) to defeat ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra etc. Wherever it is we meet along certain frontiers can be the boundary of a newly autonomous ‘Kurdish principality’ – like the model there is in Iraq.
That would be a start. Going further would allow Syrian & Iraqi Kurdistan to secede from Syria & Iraq respectively and become a Federation.
These are the sort of conditions Putin and co. could give to Assad for continued co-operation from Russia.
With a real Kurdistan in the area of Northern Syria & Iraq, Russia could become the patron of this new State, supplying them with modern weapons and so forth. Ironically, the US NeoCons would probably be delighted by this strategy, as would a country like Israel.
Sure, Assad might not like being seen as the guy who lost Northern Syria, but the Civil War has demonstrated that without superpower support he simply can’t control that area anyway.
Who of course, really wouldn’t like a real Kurdistan? TURKEY.
A real Kurdistan would of course be a constant thorn in the side of Turkey that Russia could use as leverage on Turkey forever and a day.
Although a Kurdistan from Iraq & Syria is in reality less than half of historic Kurdistan, perhaps (and I know this isn’t going to happen and is something resembling day-dreaming) the next piece of the Kurdistan puzzle, the western (Kurdish) parts of the Western Iranian provinces of Kermanshah, Kordestan and the six Southern counties of the West Azerbaijan province Oshnaviyeh, Naghadeh, Piranshahr, Mahabad, Sardasht and Bukan could also join this new Kurdish Federation, now a 3 part Federation.
And where is the last piece of the puzzle?
Turkey of course.
Given Turkey’s position, of course this new Kurdistan would need to be armed to the teeth to defend itself from – Turkey.

Posted by: Julian | Oct 21 2015 3:48 utc | 97

FWIW I would be interested to hear what Strelkov’s reasoning for being anti-democratic are. Not that I couldn’t come up with my own given that I’ve read that PR flacks in DC now outnumber journalists 3 to 1 (where in the 80s the ratio was 1 to 3. There’s a story there.) I’m just wondering if there isn’t some common ground or insight.
Projecting a bit I’d say the notion that one can decide questions like whether, say, the Ukraine should sign an EU agreement is probably best not decided via pitched street battles between mouth-breathing, ultra-nationalist proxies for US interests and government riot-troops.
Obviously all “water under the bridge” but still, is it really too late to say loudly: THE WHOLE BULLSHIT NARRATIVE NEVER MADE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER!

Posted by: Oddlots | Oct 21 2015 4:28 utc | 99