Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 20, 2015

NYT: G.O.P. Candidate Hillary Clinton Calls For No-Fly Zone

The New York Times explains on which side of the aisles Hillary Clinton positions herself.

Headline: G.O.P. Candidates Leading Charge in Call for Syrian No-Fly Zone

Third paragraph:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has split with President Obama, advocating a no-fly zone in an attempt to stop the bloodshed, reduce the flow of refugees and give the United States leverage against Russia.

Not that we had any doubt about it ...

Clinton lost the nomination race in 2008 against some young senator because of her hawkish foreign policy position. As she is obviously unable to learn from her mistakes she deserves another defeat.

Posted by b on October 20, 2015 at 9:45 UTC | Permalink

next page »

It's too late for a US-imposed no-fly zone. The only result of such an attempt would be war with Russia.

Election-driven statements, though, don't have much to do with actual policy.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 20 2015 10:09 utc | 1

..."advocating a no-fly zone in an attempt to".. blah, blah, blah...."give the United States leverage against Russia."


Hillary, how does that work, exactly?

Insisting on a no-fly zone will "give" the United States nothing more - nor less - than "a shooting war against Russia".

History tends to teach us that when that starts then the other side stops listening to you.

They can't hear, you see, over the din of the bombs going off and the planes plummeting out of the sky.

And not all of those crumpled planes are going to have Russian markings on them.....

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Oct 20 2015 10:16 utc | 2

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

Who ever won a presidential nomination by being a wimp, challenging Putin in Syria would not only be contrary to International law, it would undoubtedly lead to a clash, one which Putin could not afford to lose. To lose face in such circumstances would make Russia the laughing stock of the world, that is why it will never happen. These US nutcases have to be faced down sooner or later.

Posted by: harry law | Oct 20 2015 10:17 utc | 4

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

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.

This tells us everything we need to know about Hillary. She is reckless.

Posted by: Secret Agent | Oct 20 2015 10:28 utc | 6

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

The public doesn't know what a no-fly zone is. It sounds tough, though, and the dumbed-down public likes tough talk - hairy-chested bombast. They won't like it coming from Hillary, however, so it won't do her any good. Hurts her, in fact.

She's got Bernie kicking her ass on the left, and all the koo koo bananas drooling Republican murderous zombies on the right (THE MSM owned by Raytheon, supports warmongering all the way). She's can't find a natural position because she's not very intelligent.

Moneybags Jeb! (another bloodthirsty criminal) can beat her (from the left!) by simply incessantly playing the clip:

We came, we saw, he died (laughter).

(Voice over) Do you want a President that laughs when a guy is ass-raped with a machete?

Posted by: fast freddy | Oct 20 2015 11:19 utc | 8

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

Hillary began her political career working for Richard Nixon, she's always been a Republicrat. The rest if the Demoblicans joined her and Bill in 1992. So the Repbulicrats went ultra-far-right and the Demoblicans followed a half-step behind. Now there's no difference at all - Republicrat, Demoblican, Socialist, Green ... they're all the same when it comes to War and Wall Street.

We need to elect representatives from among ourselves [~19:50]. Only way home at this point.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 20 2015 12:11 utc | 10

@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

After the Obama debacle, a type I had no time for before he was made prez although I didn't imagine he would be as bad as he was, I cannot understand why serious people pay any attention at all to amerikan elections.
The campaigns are a weird uptempo cacophony of chest beating and dog whistles.
Few people apart from thoroughly indoctrinated followers of either half of the amerikan empire party, still believe a candidate's election undertakings will be instituted, should the candidate succeed.
The clichéd sound bites are worthless - a waste of the time and brainspace of normal humans.
History has taught us that whoever is elected will be the candidate most likely to accelerate the rush to destruction by corporate oppression.
We all know this and need to hold that reality tightly as the media conditioning turns hysterical in the run up to 'election day'.
We need to be strategizing the best ways to oppose any/all of the hopefuls rather than listening to them in a purposeless attempt to uncover 'the least worst'. Whoever does win cannot be the least worst as the political structure has been designed to ensure no person with any humanist tendencies can win.

This shit has gone too far to be able to be corrected by citizens ticking a box.
There will be a massive clampdown on people put in place sometime in the next 10 to 15 years and that is what we need to be preparing for, not avoiding reality by wasting ourselves in the smoke n mirrors of a rigged game.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 20 2015 12:19 utc | 12

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):

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

So they want to shoot down Russian jets? What a great idea! Why did I not think of that myself?

Hillary Clinton wants to shoot down Russian Jets. Also Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who says:

And I mean we’re enforcing it against anyone, including you. So don’t try me. Don’t try me. Cause I’ll do it.

These people are 1,000 times more likely to get me killed than some "lone gunman".

These people need to go to Siberia. Or maybe Alaska. With the oil deflation and government grant downturn, Alaska will be the next Siberia. We need to force these lunatics to get right up there now.

I am serious. I need protection from these sociopaths.

Posted by: blues | Oct 20 2015 12:35 utc | 14

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

After the USS Donald Cook's Aegis rumoured "experience" while on duty in the Black Sea we were not surprised at the announced removal of Spaniard and German Patriot batteries from Turkey. Shortly after 26 Russian Kalibr cruise missiles struck targets in Syria flying 1000 miles through Iran & Iraq airspace from the Caspian Sea, then came news of the swift departure of the Teddy Roosevelt aircraft carrier task group from the Persian Gulf theater for "unscheduled maintenance" at an "undisclosed location." These bits and pieces of information make it easier to believe that Russia has deployed a cutting edge EW jamming system that has neutralized NATO's air defenses making them redundant. When the Teddy Roosevelt was in the Persian Gulf, there was a capability to impose a no fly zone. But this is not possible with the number of aircraft currently deployed at Incirlik Air Base.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Oct 20 2015 13:19 utc | 16

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

Interesting comment under Bhadrakumar new article:

Diplomatic leg work on Syria gathers momentum
By M.K. Bhadrakumar on October 19, 2015

Sun Tzu says:

What is of interest to understand the Arab spring is:

1) Neocon stranglehold of foreign policy in USA
2) THE 1982 ODED YINON PLAN A Strategy for Israel WZO. The Greater Israel myth endorsed by neocons in PNAC
3) Plan for Seven MENA countries to be invaded and dismembered after 911 (Relayed publicly by retired General Wesley Clark and confessed to him by Paul Wolfowitz the neocon architect of Iraq invasion and resource plunder)
The Seven countries didn't have Central Banks owned by Rothschilds and associated with the IMF, didn't practice usury and were promoting a gold dinar bypassing the US dollar and the BIS (Bank for International Settlements)

4) Discovery of important Natural Gas reserves off the coast of Gaza resulted in the naval blockade of Gaza and the appointing of Iraq War Criminal, Tony Blair, as representative of the UN Quartet to Palestine while being a sitting board member of British Petroleum
5) Discovery of important Natural Gas reserves off the coast of Lebanon resulted in the Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon. Although this invasion failed due to stiff resistance by Hezbollah, the Israeli plan hasn't been abandoned because there are abundant water resources in the Litani river and enormous Natural Gas reserves off the coast of Southern Lebanon. The presence of Russia in Syria has thrown a monkey wrench in these plans.
6) Discovery of Oil Reserves in the Syrian Golan Heights resulted in the illegal, according to the UN. squatting of Syrian territory by Israel
7) Rival pipelines projects from both Qatar and Iran from same reservoir have caused the Western clamor to depose Assad and replace him with a more pliable government or a plan to dismember Syria like Iraq, into Kurdish, Sunni and Alawite enclaves.
8 ) Turkey's building of dams on the Euphrates have reduced downstream river flow to 20% of what it once was causing a reduction of arable land, famine and migration.
9) The western plan is to cause widespread migration of people to Europe to depopulate and favor the Greater Israel Myth and to run a pipeline through Syria to Europe to wean it from NAtural Gas supply and influence from Russia.
10) Turkey will not allow a greater Kurdistan as it feels threatened by it.
11) Russia will not allow the dismemberment of Syria or any Natural Gas pipeline that isn't Iranian or Russian controlled
12) Egypt and Jordan have already broken off with the Western coalition as they want no part with ISIS in their neighborhood.
13) Iraq has sided with Iran and Russia
14) Saudi Arabia is in trouble economically and with military overstretch in Yemen and Syria.
15) Bahrein is vulnerable to a Shia uprising.

Posted by: shadyl | Oct 20 2015 14:10 utc | 18

Apologies is this post appears twice, my browser is acting up. Keeps telling me my 'session has expired' when I hit 'Post'.

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.

They're *all* republicrats ;-) It's gives the voters the illusion of choice...

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?)

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

@shadyl #17:

Hillary … just wants to finish what she started. She wants to be compared to Margaret. She wants her legacy.

Why should Hillary have any legacy? All she did was marry Bill Clinton. Nobody hears about Mrs. Putin and her wanting "her legacy". Why is that?

Here we see how postmodernity brings us back to the primitiveness of premodernity, with its dynasties, vassal states under the control of one overarching empire that uses public spectacles of slaughter to maintain social control. and so on.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20 2015 14:30 utc | 20

@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

My view: not just all the candidates, but almost everyone in government... is "informed" by "official" channels. They are "told" in short "briefings" by staffers "summarizing" reams of "official" reports, or reps from various government agencies doing the same. And, they believe all this uncritically and take it as the "truth". Anything that contradicts, is to them... uninformed nonsense.

We see the exact same thing on local issues (water) we've worked on. EPA does it, and regularly dismisses their own "outlier" personel who do good work which contradicts easier to swallow "beliefs". Same at our state's Environment Dept. (for all states, governor appointed State run mot local EPA). Same with our governor, and with our congressional Reps and Senators. Even our own Sen. Udall, with his Dad's strong environmental legacy, is always at least 2 years behind reality on NM/Albuquerque (serious) water issues. And it's by the same means as B's post here: unable to "crack" the false "truth" veneer of "official" reports.

I see this less as a "Hillary" problem, more as endemic structural government wide dis-function. It's scary.

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 20 2015 14:51 utc | 22

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.

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!

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

Chris Christie to "Putin" (ostensibly)

"And I mean we’re enforcing it against anyone, including you. So don’t try me. Don’t try me. Cause I’ll do it."

Russian politicians have to posture for domestic political reasons too sometimes and If I was one of them, I couldn't hope for a softer more bloated target to shoot at.

Posted by: psakiwacky | Oct 20 2015 14:56 utc | 24

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. (, 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

@ 19 Who said / wrote that it was the Su-24 that caused the rumoured black out of the Aegis screens? The Su-24 did the simulated bomber runs but I always thought a ship has more power than a single aircraft. So my take back then and still is that only a more powerful antenna from another ship or from shore could have caused the black out of the screens on the Cook's Aegis.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Oct 20 2015 14:56 utc | 26

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:
May 21, 2008:
May 29, 2008:

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

Posted by: psakiwacky:

Russian politicians have to posture for domestic political reasons too sometimes and If I was one of them, I couldn't hope for a softer more bloated target to shoot at.

OMG...I needed that!!

Another good article @Zerohedge:

Watching the US attempt to explain to the public why Washington can’t join the Russians in targeting extremists in Syria has been entertainment gold. The fundamental PR problem revolves around the fact that the West has gone out of its way to hold up ISIS as the quintessential example of pure, unadulterated evil that must be eradicated at all costs and yet when Moscow began bombing ISIS targets and publicly implored the US to join in, Washington said no.


Posted by: shadyl | Oct 20 2015 15:10 utc | 28

Hillary talking tough to the US electorate is nothing compared to Putin talking tough to these billionaire factory owners.

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

You can safely dismiss any 'no-fly zone" in Syria. It won't happen. Just because some clearly degenerate people - who decide absolutely nothing - issue phony threats, doesn't mean much. US politicians lie for a living, and it's not different in this case. I can threaten any country I don't like too, I guess...

All of this hot air and empty bluster simply confirms that America seized to be a serious country. Here is one more Beltway clown( "scholar" from Brookings institution, no less) making a total fool of himself:

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 20 2015 15:31 utc | 30

"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."

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

Shillary is courting the Zionists.They are the power brokers in America,they frame the debate and candidates.Right now she is their girl.
Trump's Wapo story on how he bought a football team that failed is just the latest evidence of that affection,and they mention BS as being a socialist capitalist,IOWs a phony.
The fix is in,gang.
Look at the tiny traction of Trump's accurate take on GWBs absolute failure on 9-11,which should be front page news,but aint,only Wapo had a discussion,and most commenters agreed with Trump.
And Michele Obama is most definitely not a lesbian,or trans,in fact is some type of superwoman to my eyes,although Shillary could well be.
And remember that lesbians hate men and Muslims,so expect Valkeries from hell if elected.

Posted by: dahoit | Oct 20 2015 15:43 utc | 32

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


U.S. Approves $11 Billion Saudi Buy of Lockheed Littoral Ships

The ships are part of a planned modernization, replacing older U.S.-built vessels in the Royal Saudi Navy’s Eastern Fleet. The sale also begins to deliver on President Barack Obama’s pledge to improve the military capabilities of the U.S.’s Arab allies. Saudi Arabia and other nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council sought such reassurances before acquiescing to the U.S.-led deal with Iran on its nuclear program.

Gee, win-win for military contractors.

Posted by: shadyl | Oct 20 2015 16:11 utc | 34

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

"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)"

And maybe that's all the plane did, which would still be threatening enough. No need to fry anything, "blinding it" will suffice.

Posted by: ttt | Oct 20 2015 16:25 utc | 36

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

@ 31 There was a Russian Navy frigate shadowing the USS Donald Cook around the time of the reported incident.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Oct 20 2015 16:34 utc | 38

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

@ Sun Tzu #38:

Yes, that incident was always murky.

Back to Syria.

Robert Fisk:

The Syrians have found that the Russians do not want to fire at targets in built-up areas; they intend to leave burning hospitals and dead wedding parties to the Americans in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20 2015 16:46 utc | 40

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

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

@6 secret agent... good comments.. thanks. i think you are correct.

i am so sick and tired of us politics. i live in canada.. it doesn't matter which loser runs the usa.. it is going to be more of the same, although maybe the pace will pick up with a first class retard.. so many to choose from!

Posted by: james | Oct 20 2015 16:51 utc | 42

@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

H.C. is fixated on the past, or chooses to refer to past success on ‘no fly’, when the no fly zone over Lybia ‘flew’ (sic), 2011, as it was voted in at the ‘enlarged’ UN Security Council, and Kadafi was murdered:

see for ex.

Vid. Hillary: “We came, we saw, he died” - cheerful cutesy triumphant chuckling!

Less than 1 min.

Neither China nor Russia vetoed the resolution.

Times have changed. That will never happen again.

fast freddy posted the same clip! before i did… ;)

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 20 2015 16:54 utc | 44

For those who are not trolls on this site, a very clear interview w Putin:
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

I read more than half of the linked article and did not find WHO Clinton believed could/would/should declare/set-up/authorize a no-fly-zone .... I guess this is one of those things that "World Emperor" Barack Obama could "declare" ... or maybe "congress" echoing various "sanctions" the legality and enforcement of which most Americans have never considered ... yes, more tuff-talk, signifying very little, except more posturing, which is why I would never consider voting for the woman -- she has much-too-long history of exactly such posturing the political necessity of which, rather like her husband's famous "first you have to get elected" rhetoric and triangulation, is ever more callow than Obama's feckless inability lead or at least rein in his "administration" ...
Another embarrassment for Obama that Americans will never know about ... according to the BBC, Minsk II has taken hold and fighting has ceased ... the prospects for unification sound bleak to unlikely (many statements from locals about too much pain inflicted / damage done to be forgiven) ... still ... it sounds more like Obama using Syria to deflect/deflect/divert from genuine progress in the Ukraine .... accomplished notably without (much if any) American input.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Oct 20 2015 17:23 utc | 46

Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff: ISIL Created to Maintain Israel's Security

Hey b, I saw you on Information Clearing House!

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

I cannot understand why a debate on La Clinton asking for a no-fly zone in Syria would turn into a brainless back-and-forth on gays or lesbians in politics. La Clinton, for all is know, is not lesbian, and if she is, who cares? We are not debating her sexual life, but her political positions, and her potential damage to the country and the world. Gays and lesbians? They are doing very well, thank you, just leave them alone.

Sometimes I think we need a mod at MoA to keep stupid conversations off the board.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Oct 20 2015 17:36 utc | 48

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

echo Lone Wolf 48…hard to believe I’m reading MoA, seeing the sexual orientation, gender, etc. of famous ppl discussed. Aren’t there about 20 - 100 or more super popular sites and forums to discuss these thrilling titillating vital topics? They must be easy to find!

Michelle O. :) *of course* is MAN - or a manly, athletic woman, a poltergeist, a lizard, or a lesbian in DEEP cover - actually she must be the first human clone to grow to adulthood …argh.

In RL she is just an ambitious po’ girl, who tried to rise, did so by accident, and probably regrets it deeply.. I’m having trouble actually believing ppl with brains could be distracted by such stuff…irony doesn’t cut it if too many paragraphs…

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 20 2015 18:27 utc | 50

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

Can we lay off the homophobia please. Whatever gender or sexuality a person is has nothing to do whatsoever with their competence.

Sadly thera are idiots of all types, LGBTI and cis straight males/females.

If there was any correlation between gender/sexualty and competence, then cis stright males would have to be at the low end of the spectrum, given that in the 'halls of power' they are the vast about 97% at least and we all know how well they are doing.

Posted by: Lisa | Oct 20 2015 18:33 utc | 52

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

As I understand it, Afghanistan has never had an all-inclusive national government ... part of the issue with the Afghan communists was that they attempted to install the sort of "normal" bureaucracy we in the west take for granted -- government agencies with offices and bureaucrats monitoring and tabulating various indices. Something like this problem exists in many "undeveloped" countries and successful governments exert "discretion" in how intrusive they are with the regions who resent interference. In Afhganistan, those regional leaders -- who sorely resent central government interference -- are the war lords (see also Pakistan's tribal regions).

In short, Afghanistan isn't a very good exemplar of much of anything (except directly -- maybe -- the tribal regions of Pakistan). Libya's civil war also represented (I read) actually split along tribal lines -- Gadhafi's "tribal" association comprising about half of the population -- the other tribes "seizing" the opportunity of Arab Spring (or western help or whatever) ...
(IMHO, the Sunni/Shiite divisions in Iraq were American created and cultivated due to discriminatory and punitive policies we enacted and then tolerated when we "handed off" responsibility to an unworkable government, but whatever).

Even in the United States in my youth, there was a strong feeling that "the government that governs best governs least" ... which works better when there is a viable economy, jobs, housing and manageable poverty ... Afghanistan is at the bottom of the list on so many indices -- despite which or perhaps because of which the (largely hated and feared) warlords prevail, to which the Taliban was preferable.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Oct 20 2015 18:41 utc | 54

@ 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

wrt Afghanistan, Adam Curtis' Bitter Lake BBC documentary is mostly about recent Afghan history (recommend the "teacher's cut" ) and I finally got an partial explanation of why the communist's "land reform" failed (though I'd still like more details) -- the local turned on the government believing the distribution was unfair and rigged to parcel out the better land preferentially (I have no idea how true or untrue that claim was and/or who propagated that "rumor") I'd always wondered HOW land reform could fail -- however illiteracy in Afghanistan is still massive (CIA world fact book 38% currently, 50% for men). Only 27% of the population lives in cities, which likely house some massive percentage of those who are literate ... those city dwellers with government jobs are the people so eager for the USA to "maintain a presence" ...
I've tried to find out how many afghan farmers (opium or otherwise) actually own their fields versus operate as sharecroppers ... I suspect the latter but I haven't found out what happened AFTER land reform failed.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Oct 20 2015 18:55 utc | 56

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

#53 "she really is like that, or because a woman, she has to talk like a Rethuglican. "

She is really like that, because all the polls show that the US population is war weary and had enough of this stuff. If she was just playing politics she would follow the polls and put out a major peace message. Her entire history shows a very high level of aggression.

Posted by: Lisa | Oct 20 2015 19:34 utc | 58

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

cracka writes:

Its now just a battle between me and CIA, they keep taking the account back and I keep taking it back after xD
11:20 AM - 13 Oct 2015

Comments are priceless....

Posted by: Shadyl | Oct 20 2015 19:53 utc | 60

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.

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

So everybody takes la Clinton at her word. The fact is is that she, or any other candidate elected, will be faced with the same situation as Obama. US policy in Syria is fucked. Increase the war in Syria against Asad, and you either risk war with Russia, or you risk more floods of refugees into Europe, in which case there will be harsh words from Merkel. Collaborate with Russia, impossible for the US.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 20 2015 21:04 utc | 62

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

@61 Laguerre

"So everybody takes la Clinton at her word"

I certainly don't. And anyone who takes a word of a professional liar like Clinton at face value needs to have his/her head examined. Whatever the candidates are saying now, their actual policies will be markedly different, if not diametrically opposite to their positions at the debates.

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 20 2015 21:32 utc | 64

@ 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

Everyone seems to be naming Obama as the one guilty of pushing for a no-fly over Syria. Obama is actually, single-handedly OPPOSING the no-fly. He is the ONLY public official as far as I know who is opposing it.

I have mentioned in several of my presentations of the factional struggle in the US govt that Ukraine will also be resolved -- along Minsk 2 lines. A large revamping of US foreign policy has occurred wherein Iran joins the West; Iran & Russia solve Syria; and the US no longer opposes resolution of Ukraine, leaving it to the EU to push Porky to resolution.

The point man on the anglophile/Rockefeller/Obama faction is Obama. This faction will continue to push for their global oligarchy, but through less obvious means. And especially by expanding the supranational monetary & trade institutions which continue to usurp the sovereignty of nations.

Obama surrounds himself w neocon-types and sticks w their script on a daily basis, but he often ACTS against their wishes. And sometimes in public speeches he does present anti-neocon rhetoric. It's just that we are filled w so much revulsion that it is almost impossible to listen to the man.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2015 21:49 utc | 66

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

ShadyLady @ 23,
The neocons are only useful idiots; they are employees, some paid by think tanks & some occupying govt positions. The power lies in the hands of very wealthy individuals in the banking sector and in the boards of mega-transnational corps.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2015 21:52 utc | 68

Turkey thinks about military action against Syrian Kurds, or maybe just changing nationalist party votes to AKP votes: 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

re 49

why is Russia going to succeed in Syria, whereas – in its incarnation as the Soviet Union – it failed in Afghanistan?
Following 64, there are two major reasons. One is terrain. Afghanistan is a difficult mountainous country, Syria is flat open terrain. Two, Putin is quite wily. He is not going to commit himself to the undefensible, other than the defense of his port at Latakia.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 20 2015 21:56 utc | 70

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

Everyone seems to be naming Obama as the one guilty of pushing for a no-fly over Syria. Obama is actually, single-handedly OPPOSING the no-fly. He is the ONLY public official as far as I know who is opposing it.
Yeah, yeah, so true. It doesn't make much difference what people are saying, pre-election.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 20 2015 22:04 utc | 72

@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.

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

re 70

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.
You treat this like a minor question for the US. It is far more grave than that. I was in Istanbul at the weekend. It tore my heart to see the Syrians begging in the streets. I gave a woman 100 TL (=$40?) rather than spending it on eating.

The situation is terrible. These people are dying, either on the frontier of Hungary, where only the young and dynamic succeed in passing, or in Turkey, where the less able die from neglect. Not to blame the Turks, who have received 2 million refugees from Syria. It's beyond coping with.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 20 2015 22:39 utc | 74

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

re 72,

Hopefully the U.S. leaders will take that to heart, and steer well clear of a war with Russia.

Posted by: lysias | Oct 20 2015 22:47 utc | 76

"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

ttt @37,

Not necessarily true. All one would really need to do is put dc where there ought to be no dc, such as through subharmonic oscillations exploiting shoddy Vcc filtering. If they're using MOSFETs in the input stage, one good EMP at the right wavelength could wreak a lot of havoc. In a battle between a noncompliant adversary vs. one that believes it makes the rules, my money's on the former.

Shady1 @51, Lisa @52,

It's relevant as a matter of cultural norms, which tends to determine distribution of goods, services and status within a society. LGBTs, as opposed to queers, tend toward strong bourgeois neoliberal norms, both of which accept paternalism, proselytism, prescriptivism, superficiality, and a presumptuously arrogant disdain for realities they themselves did not create, as no mere privileges but as entitlements of their class.

Which, in my opinion, renders LGBTs, as opposed to queers, worse than incompetent as a class to serve the public interest. Indeed, they're actively dangerous for those who believe the market ought to be subordinate to society rather than the other way around.

Posted by: Jonathan | Oct 20 2015 23:03 utc | 78

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

@74 lysias

It was a completely different United States of America back then... still a sane country, well aware of its limits.

Nowadays, "cooperation" is a dirty word in Washington. It demands obedience and submission, and since Russia rejects both, it's being given an infantile "silent treatment".

This kind of behavior is a desperate effort to project strength, which, ironically, is a reliable indicator of growing weakness.

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 20 2015 23:09 utc | 80

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

I distinctively remember Assad asked Russia for assistance, and I also remember Putin state that Obama and the US has no right to be in Syria, personally I would like to see Putin and Assad tell the US to get out of Syria, give them 72 hours to leave, and then shoot down American aircraft. I have had enough of America being bullies and telling other countries what they can and cant do, its long overdue that America gets punished for its global crimes including guns and drug trafficking.

Posted by: Screw America | Oct 20 2015 23:20 utc | 82

@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

@Susan Sunflower, Jen, Laguerre, MMARR:

Thanks for the excellent analysis. I feel embarrassed now that I wrote, "The answer is obvious."

@lysias #74:

The answer is obvious. The ultimate target has always been Russia, at the center of the "world island'. Today, there is no equivalent to Germany, that is, a rival that needs to be taken out, for which goal a marriage of convenience with Russia would be advisable, before aggression towards Russia could be resumed.

To put this more clearly: ISIS is not a threat to the Anglo empire in the way that Germany was. Hence, no need to work with Russia this time.

As for godless vs Christian: the Empire does not care about the ideology of its "allies".

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20 2015 23:25 utc | 84

@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

Canada to return to its honest broker role under Trudeau

Canada shifted to the center-right under Harper, who lowered sales and corporate taxes, avoided climate change legislation, strongly supported the oil and gas extraction industry and backed the right-wing government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trudeau will have a more balanced approach to the conflict in the Middle East, analysts said.

"It certainly won't be the kind of blanket support for the Netanyahu regime that we saw from the Conservatives," Maioni said.


Posted by: shadyl | Oct 20 2015 23:43 utc | 86

@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

@james 86:

It's all about geopolitics. Russia is at the center of the world island; the US is the world's greatest power. So long as the world's greatest power does not control the world island, conflict between the people who own it and those who want to grab it is inevitable. The current hostilities of the fourth generation war type will only end once the US realizes that its window of opportunity to grab the heartland has closed (if indeed it was ever open).

Both sides know how to avoid getting into a shooting war. Given that Russia is conducting military operations inside Syria (at Syria's invitation), there is no way Russia could avoid treating the attempted creation of a no fly zone over Syria as an act of war against Russia.

That Hillary can talk about the creation of such a no fly zone is just one more example of how disconnected from reality these presidential debates have become.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 21 2015 0:53 utc | 88

@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 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

@86 james

Nothing of what you wrote makes any sense:

a. There is no meaningful NATO superiority in Northern Europe. European militaries keep downsizing, and US footprint is being reduced due to the "pivot to the Pacific".

b. NATO doesn't need Putin to "take the bait" if it wants to start a war. It can start it any time.

c. With Russian military being diverted to Syria, the opportunity to start a war would presumably be better, not worse.

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 21 2015 1:20 utc | 90

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

I just read a report quoiting a Syrian military spokesman that said it will require three months to make any progress against the rebels so Hillary's no-fly zone may not be needed.

All the propaganda generated about this inevitable reconquest seems to not have reached the rebels who aren't running in fear from the Russians, as they were supposed to. In fact the rebels dropped a rocket into a group of Russian fighters in Assad's stronghold.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Oct 21 2015 2:00 utc | 92

@ 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

@87 demian.. yes, i was aware of that.. we'll see how the next few months unfold..

@88mmarr.. skip over my posts if you'd prefer..

@90 wow. "The Russian Embassy in Syria has refuted media reports about three Russian soldiers or “volunteers fighting in Syria” killed by a militant shelling. “We have no information about the alleged deaths of three Russians or “Russian soldiers” in Syria, which was reported by Reuters. It looks like one more stove piping,” the Russian Embassy told TASS news agency. Earlier Tuesday, Reuters reported about at least three Russian soldiers killed and several more wounded after their position was shelled in the province of Latakia, citing a senior pro-government military source." not that you care either way..your specialty is more propaganda, not less..

Posted by: james | Oct 21 2015 2:30 utc | 94

@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

Penelope @65: "Obama surrounds himself w neocon-types and sticks w their script on a daily basis, but he often ACTS against their wishes. And sometimes in public speeches he does present anti-neocon rhetoric. It's just that we are filled w so much revulsion that it is almost impossible to listen to the man."

Great comments generally, and I especially like this one. And your reasoning that he represents Wall Street rather than the military-industrial complex ... Contrasting with every previous President, who represented both. As the U.S. economically declines, maybe a choice has to be made, one or the other. And common sense imperialism says, go with Wall Street ruling the world rather than the Pentagon. Common sense in that the TPP and similar sadly seem to be pushing forward seemlessly.

On the other hand, Wall Street probably understands that its alliance with the Pentagon and those industries has served it well. As a distraction, and to create a larger and wider constituency, and voters for the dual program of Wall Street and Pentagon+ rule. Obama may just be a fluke, who doesn't understand the importance of the war/finance alliance, and Hillary or one of the Republicans will get the U.S. back into balance as its sun slowly sets. We'll see.

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 21 2015 3:06 utc | 96

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

A note here, while a no fly zone sounds peaceful, it's basically going to war.

Bombing airfields, power stations bridges, any potential SAM AAA sites, etc.

Posted by: Matthew G. Saroff | Oct 21 2015 3:49 utc | 98

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

Syria itself, and at its invitation Russia, are the only two countries legally able to fly war plans over Syria. All other warplanes and drones are criminal aggressors. It is not up to the criminal aggressors to designate a 'no-fly' zone over Syria.

Syria and Russia need to publish the 'tapes' of the f-16 incursions which resulted in the destruction of the electrical power stations in Syria, spell out what those acts of terrorism mean for Syria and the Syrian people, and put all the criminal aggressors on notice that - in order to put an end to the deaths of Syrians, and the devastation and destruction of Syria - any and all flights over Syria undertaken by third/unknown countries without prior consultation with Syria will be assummed to be aggressors and subject to interception.

That's the reality of the situation.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 21 2015 5:23 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.