Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Paul Craig Roberts and Glenn Greenwald are right: Hillary is truly dangerous
I have just read Paul Craig Roberts' article "The Next Presidential Election Will Move The World Closer To War". In the article, PCR refers to an article by Glenn Greenwald entitled "Cynics, Step Aside: There is Genuine Excitement Over a Hillary Clinton Candidacy". Both authors agree that the possibility of Clinton becoming President is very bad news, PCR even mentions the risk of war.
Sadly, I have to agree with both of them. Hillary is the quintessential expression of everything that is wrong with the USA, and on the heals of an absolutely disastrous presidency by Barak Obama, Hillary will have a lot to prove to herself and to her power base (which Greenwald describes in his piece). I won't repeat all the arguments of PCR and Greenwald, but I will just add that I am absolutely convinced that Hillary is both delusional enough and arrogant enough to believe that she can bully Russia, including with the use of military force. And at the risk of sounding a little naive, I would also add that I think that she is also simply an evil person.
The problem is, of course, that Russia will not back down. Not for issues which are clearly of strategic, existential, importance to her. That very much includes the Ukraine's future. I am afraid that the US will think of a military confrontation with Russia as a game of chicken when for Russia it will be a matter of survival. We all know how that can end.
Two forces might, maybe, prevent this descent into war: a hypothetical part of the ruling 1%ers who might realize how much the US would risk in such a war, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That, or an internal crisis which would draw enough energy from the Federal government to make it unable to pursue foreign imperial policies.
Either way, I have to say that I look at the future with a great deal of anxiety.
The Saker
PS: this begs the question of whether a Republicrat candidate would be any better than a Demoblican one. All I can say is that Jeb Bush is an intelligent man (at least he knows a foreign language) and that he does not appear delusional. Is that better? Maybe.
Sadly, I have to agree with both of them. Hillary is the quintessential expression of everything that is wrong with the USA, and on the heals of an absolutely disastrous presidency by Barak Obama, Hillary will have a lot to prove to herself and to her power base (which Greenwald describes in his piece). I won't repeat all the arguments of PCR and Greenwald, but I will just add that I am absolutely convinced that Hillary is both delusional enough and arrogant enough to believe that she can bully Russia, including with the use of military force. And at the risk of sounding a little naive, I would also add that I think that she is also simply an evil person.
The problem is, of course, that Russia will not back down. Not for issues which are clearly of strategic, existential, importance to her. That very much includes the Ukraine's future. I am afraid that the US will think of a military confrontation with Russia as a game of chicken when for Russia it will be a matter of survival. We all know how that can end.
Two forces might, maybe, prevent this descent into war: a hypothetical part of the ruling 1%ers who might realize how much the US would risk in such a war, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That, or an internal crisis which would draw enough energy from the Federal government to make it unable to pursue foreign imperial policies.
Either way, I have to say that I look at the future with a great deal of anxiety.
The Saker
PS: this begs the question of whether a Republicrat candidate would be any better than a Demoblican one. All I can say is that Jeb Bush is an intelligent man (at least he knows a foreign language) and that he does not appear delusional. Is that better? Maybe.