Jill Stein: Hillary Clinton's Declared Syria Policy Could Start a Nuclear War

This article on RealClearPolitics.com has two titles. The other headline is "Jill Stein: Trump Is Less Dangerous Than Clinton; She Will Start Nuclear War With Russia".

The video of Jill Stein speaking on C-Span can be found here.

Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein says Donald Trump is less scary on foreign wars, because he wants to work with Russia.

JILL STEIN: It's important to look at where we are going. It's not just a moment in time, but where has the strategy of voting for the lesser evil taken us?

All these times you have been told to vote for the lesser evil because you didn't want the wars, or the meltdown of the climate, or the offshoring of our jobs, or the attack on immigrants, or the massive bailout for Wall Street, but that is actually what we have gotten. By the droves.

Because we with public interest allow ourselves to be silent, and voted for the lesser evil. But the lesser evil doesn't solve the problem.

[JILL STEIN:] I sure won't sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won't sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies.

On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia.

He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.

Jill Stein is the Green Party's candidate for the Presidency of the USA, but she was denied the right to participate in the Presidential Debates in the USA. Her observations about Hillary Clinton and her policies leading to nuclear war will likely not be heard by many, but her observations should give anyone pause about voting for the major party candidates and especially the hawkish Hillary Clinton with her foreign policy outlook and her part in the conflict in Libya when she was the USA's Secretary of State under President Obama.

source

edit on 14/10/2016 by Kapriti because: grammar

a reply to: Kapriti

It sounds like Jill Stein has a trait that Hillary does not possess.... honesty.

Remember it was Hillary who said she wanted to "Obliterate" Iran.

"We came, we saw, he died *Laughs maniacally*"

This poor excuse for a human being will get us into a conflict we cannot back out of.

When I say I worry for my fellow soldier who are in harms way today, I mean it. Hillary is dangerous.

Trump is an idiot...But Hillary is going to get people killed.

The Syria policy isn't hers. The BS about democratizing Syria is deflection away from Iran. The goal is Iran. First they have to reduce Syria, to get to Iran.

a reply to: Kapriti

70%+ of people polled want to see third parties included in the debates...

...yet the Commission on Presidential Debates uses presidential-preference polling to determine who is actually invited to the debates, instead.

In other words, the Commission is counting votes before they are even cast when they could 'hear' the people who vastly agree that third parties should be included in the debates.

I think anyone supporting either of these two parties is out of their mind doing exactly what they are programmed to do.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Keeping her and Johnson out of the debates made sure that the only voice heard in contrast and contradiction to Clinton would be Donald Trump. I feel certain that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would have so outclassed both major parties' candidates in the debates that there would have been much more to the USA's election than trying to determine which is the lesser of 2 evils.

That said, Jill Stein's warning on Hillary Clinton and nuclear war needs to be taken very seriously as Stein is not merely emoting but she is giving a critique of Clinton's policies and past performance as Secretary of State.

originally posted by: Kapriti
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Keeping her and Johnson out of the debates made sure that the only voice heard in contrast and contradiction to Clinton would be Donald Trump. I feel certain that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would have so outclassed both major parties' candidates in the debates that there would have been much more to the USA's election than trying to determine which is the lesser of 2 evils.

That said, Jill Stein's warning on Hillary Clinton and nuclear war needs to be taken very seriously as Stein is not merely emoting but she is giving a critique of Clinton's policies and past performance as Secretary of State.

Regardless of whether she's right wrong...regardless of her motivation: I want to see both candidates challenged on questions like Jill Stein has.

The media sure the heII cannot be trusted to do it.

I'm voting Jill Stein!!!!

In the next debate I hope Chris Wallace will pose a question that addresses the following:

JILL STEIN: It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone.

We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been.

Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria.

More truth from the Anti-Establishment crowd.

a reply to: Kapriti
At first I didn't get it. She's saying don't vote for Hillary because Hillary is hawkish and may start a--potentially nuclear--conflict with Russia? So she can't mean vote for Trump, right? Then I read the article. She says don't vote for Trump either because he's right-wing extremism. He's the result of failed left-wing policies--like NAFTA. She's saying both the right and left parties are interlinked and the result of each other's actions. She's saying don't vote for the lesser-evil. Don't choose between two evils. Vote independent.

I have a probelm with it though. I've voted independent since Gore. The problem is none of the independents have a chance. And I think Hillary is the lesser evil. I really don't want to see Trump win and still think it's possible. I can't change the fact Hillary is establishment. It's not her fault the US has a history of meddling in and bombing other countries. She does what politicians do. Most of us in her position would be doing the same. I sincerely believe our intelligence agencies are giving our politicians information which supports military action across the world. Whether it's ultimately true or not is unfortunately beyond the capacity of most of us. Frankly, my own feeling about it is based on the limited information I have and my intuitions. If intelligence reports and national security advisors are telling me a story contrary to my own intuition and thoughts, I have to heed it, especially if I'm serving over 300 million people. My own opinions have to be set aside because those millions of people rely on me to make reasonable factual decisions. What choice would I have, short of acquiring superhuman powers and being able to time travel, so I could prove wrong or right the information they give me?

I don't like these wars and I don't like meddling in other countries. I don't like the idea of us supporting rebels or opposition fighters. This is what has been going on in Syria since at least 2011. Multiple countries are involved in varying ways. My gut reaction is to leave Syria alone until the evidence against it is undeniable. And yet there may be valid reason for meddling or a no fly zone. And Assad may in fact be killing his own population and accruing numerous human rights violations. The UN has a RToP policy whereby if a leader is shown to be doing XYZ then military intervention is permitted. Hence, if Assad truly is mass murdering his own people, the UN is obligated to militarily intervene. (RToP was formally and unanimously passed in 2005 by the United Nations General Assembly.)

I'm with you Stein. You've got my vote and I'm sorry I left to consider Trump for a bit blinded by my hate of Hillary. I'm back and staying.

a reply to: jonnywhite

I thank you sincerely for your thoughtful response to the OP.

Regarding UN action in Syria, the problem that first presents itself is that Russia and the People's Republic of China dispute the USA and western European claims regarding Assad. Their position may be entirely political, but it makes USA intervention in Syria a recipe for conflict between the USA on one side and Russia and the People's Republic of China on the other side.

In this election cycle, I know it is painfully difficult for US citizens to decide what to do. But if there was ever a time to register clear rejection of the policies of the Democrats and the Republicans, I think this election is the time to do so in whatever way one decides is most effective.

Is it too late for the electorate to make this a race between Stein and Johnson?

Is Stein on the ballot in all 50 states?

a reply to: Greggers

Sadly Stein is not. I'm still voting for her though.

So.

Did anyone go look up what this dangerous policy of Clinton's would be? I did. There's two parts:

* NO American ground troops.
* Enforce a no-fly zone.

That's it. Period.

Perhaps Dr. Stein can explain more clearly how not allowing American ground troops into Syria and enforcing a no-fly zone with our allies starts a nuclear war.

news story referencing Trump & Clinton approach to Syria

a reply to: Kapriti

I was really disappointed when she wasn't allowed at the debate. It was one of the most watched programs on TV and if she had been given a fair shot at speaking, there might be a lot more of us supporting her.

I just finished reading all Gary Johnson's policy positions. I agree with most of them.

Now I'm off to read more about Stein.


Seriously people, either one of these candidates would have to be better than the two front-runners. Why aren't more Americans on board with this?

originally posted by: Byrd
So.

Did anyone go look up what this dangerous policy of Clinton's would be? I did. There's two parts:

* NO American ground troops.
* Enforce a no-fly zone.

That's it. Period.

Perhaps Dr. Stein can explain more clearly how not allowing American ground troops into Syria and enforcing a no-fly zone with our allies starts a nuclear war.

news story referencing Trump & Clinton approach to Syria

You have some reading to do then.. start here.. of course this is all opinion and theory..

www.haaretz.com...

McCain thinks it can be done without war. However, Gen. Dundord's stance is that implementing the no fly zone today would lead to war with Russia and Syria.

Either way, Johnson/Stein are the only choices here if you want the U.S. to stop meddling in regime change.

a reply to: Byrd

Shouldn't the Syrian government decide who flys in their own sovereign territory? With the allies we have currently killing civilians in Yemen we have no moral leg to stand on and the usa has propped up worse dictators than assad.
Russia is invited to help a legitimate government fight a mostly foreign sponsored conflict.
Why would the western powers many America impose a no fly zone if not to start a major war with Russia?